# FAA Seafire vs Corsair



## aircro (Mar 3, 2021)

Landing accidents and hours flying - was Seafire that bad  ?

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Mar 3, 2021)

The other side of the coin.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Mar 3, 2021)

I like the Seafire. Give it the Mk.III’s folding wings and improved oleos from its 1941/2 debut and you have a winner. Though as a Canadian (UK born) I have a soft spot for the Corsair and Canada’s last VC.






Chance Vought F4U Corsair

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


----------



## Koopernic (Mar 5, 2021)

”Fixing” the corsair involved
1 Shock absorbers in the oleos to stop bounce on landing.
2 Extended tail yoke to prevent one wing stalling ahead of the other due to propellor circulation when in the 3 point attitude.
3 Stall strip to prevent one wing stalling ahead of the other due to propellor rotation.
The bearcat had the engine angled down and to one side to create a counter to prop torque. Perhaps this could have been done to Corsair.
The Spitfire suffered from some of the same issues including the oleos. The tail was too small especially for the Griffon variants. The problems were solved by contra rotating propellor post war.
The Corsair and Spitfire both had handling issues that came out under the pressure of carrier opps. The corsairs obviously worse.
The USN thought the P-51D unsuitable for carrier opps but the P-51H was suitable due to its enlarged tail.

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


----------



## Admiral Beez (Mar 6, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> The Spitfire suffered from some of the same issues including the oleos. The tail was too small especially for the Griffon variants.


While the rudder increased in size, now that you mention it the tail does seem tiny on the later models. And integrating the hook into the tail seems needlessly complicated. Still though, one of the prettiest prop aircraft to ever grace a flattop.

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


----------



## Koopernic (Mar 6, 2021)

Admiral Beez said:


> While the rudder increased in size, now that you mention it the tail does seem tiny on the later models. And integrating the hook into the tail seems needlessly complicated. Still though, one of the prettiest prop aircraft to ever grace a flattop.
> 
> View attachment 615024



The above is a Griffon Seafire XVIII I believe. It has the enlarged tall rudder first seen on the Merlin engined Spitfire VII/VIII I think. Even this rudder lacked sufficient authority. If I understand correctly Handling issues of the Seafire seem to relate to the undercarriage ability to handle the required sink rate forcing a slow approach and countering engine torque. My “Spitfire 70” contains little info on the issues.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Mar 6, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> The above is a Griffon Seafire XVIII I believe. It has the enlarged tall rudder first seen on the Merlin engined Spitfire VII/VIII I think. Even this rudder lacked sufficient authority. If I understand correctly Handling issues of the Seafire seem to relate to the undercarriage ability to handle the required sink rate forcing a slow approach and countering engine torque. My “Spitfire 70” contains little info on the issues.


Perhaps that‘s why the Firebrand has such a massive tail.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (Mar 6, 2021)

Admiral Beez said:


> Perhaps that‘s why the Firebrand has such a massive tail.
> 
> View attachment 615043



The firebrand seems to have another characteristic undesirable in a carrier aircraft: a long nose thereby giving visibility issues. It’s likely caused by putting the fuel tanks ahead of the cockpit behind the engine. Aircaft such as the Hellcat, Fw 190 put it behind and underneath.

The Hellcat was considered viceless in terms of handling and had good visibility. The Corsair gets the glory only because of a post war 440mph variant with an powerful engine the Hellcat never got.

The development of Seafire was opposed by many, including Churchill, on the grounds of maximizing Spitfire production. Perhaps we would have seen more Mk XIV, XVIII and F22.

The RN would have done well to stick to hellcats and corsairs for its fleet carriers.

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


----------



## Admiral Beez (Mar 6, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> The RN would have done well to stick to hellcats and corsairs for its fleet carriers.


Agreed. Ideally both CC&F and CAC should have begun license-building the Wildcat in 1938 instead (in CC&F's case) of the Hurricane. These would have been non-folding Martlets, unless CC&F designed a folding wing of their own.


----------



## pbehn (Mar 6, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> The firebrand seems to have another characteristic undesirable in a carrier aircraft: a long nose thereby giving visibility issues. It’s likely caused by putting the fuel tanks ahead of the cockpit behind the engine. Aircaft such as the Hellcat, Fw 190 put it behind and underneath.
> 
> The Hellcat was considered voiceless in terms of handling and had good visibility. The Corsair gets the glory only because of a post war 440mph variant with an powerful engine the Hellcat never got.
> 
> ...


The Firebrand had all sorts of problems, it just wasn't very good at anything. A big tail only gives authority in one dimension.


----------



## RCAFson (Mar 6, 2021)

Admiral Beez said:


> Agreed. Ideally both CC&F and CAC should have begun license-building the Wildcat in 1938 instead (in CC&F's case) of the Hurricane. These would have been non-folding Martlets, unless CC&F designed a folding wing of their own.



The F4F wasn't even accepted by the USN until mid 1939 and the first production aircraft didn't fly until Feb 1940. CCF couldn't possibly license build an aircraft that wasn't ready for production.

OTOH, CCF could have navalized the Hurricane if given the go ahead by Hawker and the RN FAA.

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


----------



## RCAFson (Mar 6, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> The firebrand seems to have another characteristic undesirable in a carrier aircraft: a long nose thereby giving visibility issues. It’s likely caused by putting the fuel tanks ahead of the cockpit behind the engine. Aircaft such as the Hellcat, Fw 190 put it behind and underneath.
> 
> The Hellcat was considered viceless in terms of handling and had good visibility. The Corsair gets the glory only because of a post war 440mph variant with an powerful engine the Hellcat never got.
> 
> ...



Hellcat wasn't available, even to the USN before mid 1943, hence the desire for the F4U, but even that wasn't ready before late 1942, hence the Seafire. Also the USN refused to part with enough Hellcats so the RN turned to the F4U. The F4U did have a performance advantage over the F6F, but maybe not enough to really matter.

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


----------



## Admiral Beez (Mar 6, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> The development of Seafire was opposed by many, including Churchill, on the grounds of maximizing Spitfire production. Perhaps we would have seen more Mk XIV, XVIII and F22.


The folding wing, oleo-fixed, longer range Seafire should have been in development before Churchill became PM in May 1940. As FSL in 1939 he should have been pushing the Air Ministry for the best aircraft for his carriers.... namely the Seafire. In short, no Fulmar, make folding Seafires.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Mar 6, 2021)

Regarding post # 4, the Corsair didn't need new oleos. Instead they could have dones what modern Corsair owners do. Don't service the struts to full recommended pressure. It is all over the place if serviced normally. But it more or less lands straight if you leave the struts soft.

That from actual Corsair drivers today.

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


----------



## Admiral Beez (Mar 6, 2021)

GregP said:


> Regarding post # 4, the Corsair didn't need new oleos. Instead they could have dones what modern Corsair owners do. Don't service the struts to full recommended pressure. It is all over the place if serviced normally. But it more or less lands straight if you leave the struts soft.
> 
> That from actual Corsair drivers today.


I suppose this is late war and best practice, but these FAA Corsairs are landing nicely.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (Mar 7, 2021)

That rofficer with the wavy hair lecturing on landing a Corsair would be lead singer in a band called Simplyred nowadays.

The Corsair nor Hellcat never encountered a Fw 190 nor Me 109G nor as far as I can tell did Seafires. They spent their day chasing of intimidating and attacking Luftwaffe reconnaissance aircraft such as Fw 200 and Ju 290 and bombers such as the Ju 88 and He 111. For that job the Fulmar, Martlet and Sea Hurricane are perfectly adequate till Hellcts and Corsairs became available and Hence the Seafire was perhaps a luxury or perhaps indulgence of the Admiralty. The type suffered a high accident rate.


----------



## RCAFson (Mar 7, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> That rofficer with the wavy hair lecturing on landing a Corsair would be lead singer in a band called Simplyred nowadays.
> 
> The Corsair nor Hellcat never encountered a Fw 190 nor Me 109G nor as far as I can tell did Seafires. They spent their day chasing of intimidating and attacking Luftwaffe reconnaissance aircraft such as Fw 200 and Ju 290 and bombers such as the Ju 88 and He 111. For that job the Fulmar, Martlet and Sea Hurricane are perfectly adequate till Hellcts and Corsairs became available and Hence the Seafire was perhaps a luxury or perhaps indulgence of the Admiralty. The type suffered a high accident rate.



The Seafire IIC and LIIC did encounter FW190s and the Seafire was deployed during the Sicily and Salerno landings, and it was Seafires operating from CVEs that provided close air cover for the Salerno landings.


----------



## Koopernic (Mar 7, 2021)

RCAFson said:


> The Seafire IIC and LIIC did encounter FW190s and the Seafire was deployed during the Sicily and Salerno landings, and it was Seafires operating from CVEs that provided close air cover for the Salerno landings.



Some combat with Me 109G and chased of Fw 190 fighter bombers. Noteworthy is that within 3-4 days over half the Seafire II (essentially a spitfire v) were not operational due to landing accidents. That shows the types unsuitabillity.

Like the Corsair the Seafire had poor visibility necessitating a curved approach. The constant throttle changes required on both aircaft caused strong torque reactions not easily handled by the small tails and rudders at the low speeds.


----------



## RCAFson (Mar 7, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> Some combat with Me 109G and chased of Fw 190 fighter bombers. Noteworthy is that within 3-4 days over half the Seafire II (essentially a spitfire v) were not operational due to landing accidents. That shows the types unsuitabillity.
> 
> Like the Corsair the Seafire had poor visibility necessitating a curved approach. The constant throttle changes required on both aircaft caused strong torque reactions not easily handled by the small tails and rudders at the low speeds.



The Seafires were operating off ~15 knot CVE's in essentially windless conditions, consequently their landing speeds were excessive but any other carrier fighter would have suffered under similar conditions.

Additionally, all Seafires from the II variant onward were purpose built as carrier aircraft, extensively modified from the basic Mk V, and were not converted Mk Vs.


----------



## Koopernic (Mar 7, 2021)

RCAFson said:


> The Seafires were operating off ~15 knot CVE's in essentially windless conditions, consequently their landing speeds were excessive but any other carrier fighter would have suffered under similar conditions.



While I agree a 17 knot headwind over deck is challenging I doubt the Hellcat, Martlet or even Seahurricane would have suffered anywhere near as much from about a 17 knot over the deck headwind. Suffering is relative. They didn’t have weak undercarriages nor was their stall speed so close to their approach speed nor did they suffer from the visibility issues. USN carriers participated in the Salerno landings and I suspect they didn’t suffer the same fate in the same conditions Nor other RN naval fighters.


----------



## RCAFson (Mar 7, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> I rather doubt the Hellcat, Martlet or even Seahurricane would have suffered anywhere near as much from about a 17 knot over the deck headwind. Suffering is relative. They didn’t have weak undercarriages nor was their stall speed so close to their approach speed nor did they suffer from the visibility issues. USN carriers participated in the Salerno landings and I suspect they didn’t suffer the same fate in the same conditions Nor other RN naval fighters.



There were no USN carriers at Salerno.

All carrier fighters required a minimum amount of wind over the deck to reduce the stress of arrested landings and to allow the tailhook time to grab a wire. The greater the differential between carrier effective speed (speed through the water and wind over the deck) the greater the stress on the airframe and LG upon landing. The Seafires flew 713 sorties, for a peak of 4.1 sorties/day per aircraft, which was a very high operational sortie rate especially given the low winds.

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


----------



## pbehn (Mar 7, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> While I agree a 17 knot headwind over deck is challenging I doubt the Hellcat, Martlet or even Seahurricane would have suffered anywhere near as much from about a 17 knot over the deck headwind. Suffering is relative. They didn’t have weak undercarriages nor was their stall speed so close to their approach speed nor did they suffer from the visibility issues. USN carriers participated in the Salerno landings and I suspect they didn’t suffer the same fate in the same conditions Nor other RN naval fighters.


As I understand it at times they weren't even sailing at 15kts, if you continue to make 15kts all day in that area you hit land or go out of range.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Mar 7, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> The Corsair nor Hellcat never encountered a Fw 190 nor Me 109G


No mention of the variant, but here’s an account of Hellcats vs. Bf 109s When Hellcats Took the Fight to the Luftwaffe

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


----------



## Koopernic (Mar 7, 2021)

pbehn said:


> As I understand it at times they weren't even sailing at 15kts, if you continue to make 15kts all day in that area you hit land or go out of range.



They order of battle in wiki suggests all of the escort carriers were the Attacker Class, supposedly capable of 18 knots but probably less in reality. I had thought the USN carriers had participated because there were Hellcats at Salerno. The USN was there but non of its carriers.

There is a good review of the Seafire Development and problems here:
Armoured Aircraft Carriers (armouredcarriers.com) 

Had development commenced earlier some of the issues could probably have been dealt with earlier, particularly the structural and undercarriage issues. 

Apart from much greater overall strength the Seafire needed a larger rudder area, perhaps a larger tail area with much stronger undercarriage and shock absorbing oleos.

The poor visibility would be insoluble unless the cockpit was raised or some more effective flap was found.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Mar 7, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> The poor visibility would be insoluble unless the cockpit was raised or some more effective flap was found.


I think every British fighter would present this issue, given their placement of fuel tanks between the engine and the cockpit. It may have a much too fast landing speed, but the best RAF single seat monoplane fighter for view of the deck is the Whirlwind. Though looking at this pic iDK.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Mar 7, 2021)

Didn't Whirlwinds have a high landing speed?

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Mar 7, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Didn't Whirlwinds have a high landing speed?


Yes, I did my very best to mention that above, but evidently failed.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Mar 7, 2021)

Admiral Beez said:


> Yes, I did my very best to mention that above, but evidently failed.



You did fine -- my reading skills, not so much. 

I'd think that could be a problem trapping on a small deck, but it was a good airplane imo all the same.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (Mar 7, 2021)

Below you can see a Hellcat hooked up to a catapult. Note the Fowler flap system (edit these are actually NACA slotted flaps) which are more effective than the split trail flaps used on the Seafire. These flaps have a mechanism that moves them back slightly to create a slot. Perhaps such a device might have either slowed the Seafire down on landing or allowed it to land at lower angle of attack and thereby enjoy better visibility.

To navalise the Spitfire I would be inclined to move the cockpit forward by reducing fuel tank volume to 2/3rds and also move the cockpit up slightly to give a better over the nose visibility. I would replace the lost fuel volume in either a tank below or behind the pilot. I would add a fowler or slotted flap system and a robust undercarriage and shock absorbing oleos.

I would add a P-51D style spine to the vertical tail to improve lateral stability with the enlarged rudder of the Mk VII/VIII. Ideally a coaxial contra rotating prop would be developed to cancel out any of the effects of torque, P factor, gyroscopic precession etc.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Mar 7, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> Had development commenced earlier some of the issues could probably have been dealt with earlier, particularly the structural and undercarriage issues.


Give the Seafire of 1941 folding wings and robust undercarriage, along with the greater internal fuel of the later Spitfires and IMO the FAA will have a killer for the MTO. The Fulmar can be dedicated to bombing, the Skua retired and the Hurricanes passed over entirely.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (Mar 7, 2021)

Admiral Beez said:


> Give the Seafire of 1941 folding wings and robust undercarriage, along with the greater internal fuel of the later Spitfires and IMO the FAA will have a killer for the MTO. The Fulmar can be dedicated to bombing, the Skua retired and the Hurricanes passed over entirely.



Not the ideal aircraft but certainly starting early would have meant the seafire was more mature and were ready when needed. You would still have the visibility problem and the problem of the seafire "floating" presumably from a wing in ground effect.

Adapting a land plane to a carrier is probably not a good idea.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Mar 7, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> Adapting a land plane to a carrier is probably not a good idea.


True. It's not often that ever works out. The Sea Fury is one I can think of, but it may have been significantly worked over once the RAF declined it. 

Of course postwar there is the SHAR, I suspect after the Fulmar it's the FAA's 2nd or 3rd highest scoring fighter of all time.


----------



## RCAFson (Mar 8, 2021)

The Seafire LIIC/III head to head with the F6F and FM1/FM2:

Operation Dragoon (Invasion of southern France) Aug 1944.

CVE carrier sorties:

1073 Seafire Sorties / 252 F6F sorties / 347 FM1/2 sorties.

Operational and combat loss rate: 2.8% / 4.4% / 3.4%

This campaign was notable as the Seafires were also used extensively as fighter bombers (~300 sorties) , typically carrying 500lb bombs, but occasionally using 250lb bombs when winds were light or there was a shortage of 500lb bombs.

(Data from _The Seafire_ by D. Brown)

Reactions: Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (Mar 8, 2021)

RCAFson said:


> The Seafire LIIC/III head to head with the F6F and FM1/FM2:
> 
> Operation Dragoon (Invasion of southern France) Aug 1944.
> 
> ...



Im inclined to reference Disraeli‘s quip on statistics. The loss rate would depend on type of mission.

A Hellcat sortie would have nearly twice the range and endurance. They performed missions the spitfire couldn't (high altitude, long range, deep penetration). 

The statistics are not inaccurate but they are incomplete. What is going on.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Mar 8, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> Im inclined to reference Disraeli‘s quip on statistics. The loss rate would depend on type of mission.
> 
> A Hellcat sortie would have nearly twice the range and endurance. They performed missions the spitfire couldn't (high altitude, long range, deep penetration).
> 
> The statistics are not inaccurate but they are incomplete. What is going on.



These are combat losses, and losses through flight deck accidents and mechanical failures. (edited)


----------



## Koopernic (Mar 8, 2021)

RCAFson said:


> These are not combat losses, but losses through flight deck accidents and mechanical failures.



I think “operational losses“ refers to all losses in the combat zone, accidents and by enemy action. Most F6F combat losses were from FLAK.


----------



## RCAFson (Mar 8, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> I think “operational losses“ refers to all losses in the combat zone, accidents and by enemy action. Most F6F combat losses were from FLAK.


Yes, you're correct. Seafire operational losses from landing and flight deck accidents alone constituted ~1/2 (1.6% of all sorties) of the operational losses with combat resulting in a 1% sortie loss rate and engine failure making up the rest for a total of 2.8%.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (Mar 8, 2021)

Admiral Beez said:


> I think every British fighter would present this issue, given their placement of fuel tanks between the engine and the cockpit. It may have a much too fast landing speed, but the best RAF single seat monoplane fighter for view of the deck is the Whirlwind. Though looking at this pic iDK.
> 
> View attachment 615275



How would one “navalise” the whirlwind?

Increase wing area by 21% to decrease stall speed at least 10% (likely more due to increased flap area) from 95mph to about 85.5 to perhaps 80.

The flaps of the Whirlwind are pretty interesting.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (Mar 8, 2021)

RCAFson said:


> Yes, you're correct. Seafire operational losses from landing and flight deck accidents alone constituted ~1/2 (1.6% of all sorties) of the operational losses with combat resulting in a 1% sortie loss rate and engine failure making up the rest for a total of 2.8%.



I expect these were Seafire III given the use of bombs, rockets a folding wing and would have been a refined product.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Mar 8, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> How would one “navalise” the whirlwind?


I don’t want to cause a threat derailment, so I suggest we continue Whirlwind talk here, Westland Whirlwind revisited

To my eye, the Corsair just looks badass, and I imagine the pilots that flew it came to like its speed and power, forgiving its poor view forward when landing.


----------



## Dawncaster (Mar 8, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> Below you can see a Hellcat hooked up to a catapult. Note the Fowler flap system which is more effective than the split trail flaps use on the Seafire. Perhaps such a device might have either slowed the Spitfire down on landing or allowed it to land at lower angle of attack and thereby enjoy better visibility.
> 
> To modify the Spitfire I would be inclined to move the cockpit forward by reducing fuel tank volume to 2/3rds and also move the cockpit up slightly to give a better over the nose visibility. I would replace the lost fuel volume in either a tank below or behind the pilot. I would add a fowler flap system and a robust undercarriage and shock absorbing oleos.
> 
> ...



The Hellcat did not have Fowler flap system, it was NACA slotted flap. The Corsair also had the NACA slotted flap system, it's efficiency for lift cofficient was better than Hellcat's. Corsair had a lower stall speed and landing speed than the Hellcat, in landing condition. Nevertheless, for early F4U-1, it was found that large, effective and low positioned flaps had a negative impact on landing performance due to interference with the deck.







The Corsair's landing performance gradually improved, and the F4U-1D(FG-1D) was considered to have equivalent or even better landing performance than the F6F-5 in several evaluations and reports. Although there was also evaluation that the Hellcat had better all-around carrier characteristics.

It is possible that powerful flap system will not provide better landing performance always.

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


----------



## Koopernic (Mar 8, 2021)

Dawncaster said:


> The Hellcat did not have Fowler flap system, it was NACA slotted flap. The Corsair also had the NACA slotted flap system, it's efficiency for lift cofficient was better than Hellcat's. Corsair had a lower stall speed and landing speed than the Hellcat, in landing condition. Nevertheless, for early F4U-1, it was found that large, effective and low positioned flaps had a negative impact on landing performance due to interference with the deck.
> 
> View attachment 615334
> 
> ...



Thanks for clearing up what type of flaps were used on the corsair and hellcat. The NACA slotted flap does move backward, somewhat like the Fowler flap. They just move back nowhere near as far, only so much as to develop the slot hence my mistake when looking at extended Hellcat flaps. I imagine the close to the ground flaps caused the Corsair to float when deployed too far?


----------



## RCAFson (Mar 8, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> I expect these were Seafire III given the use of bombs, rockets a folding wing and would have been a refined product.


There were 97 Seafires at the start of operations of which about a quarter were Seafire LIIC and LRIICs, with the rest being LIIIs. It seems that by Aug 1944 there was sufficient operational experience with the Seafire to result in much safer decklandings and improved carrier handling, and there was moderately more wind available in the ops off Southern France. Additionally, minor mods such as cropped propeller blades resulted in a much reduced incidence of propellor and CSU damage.

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


----------



## Admiral Beez (Mar 8, 2021)

Dawncaster said:


> Nevertheless, for early F4U-1, it was found that large, effective and low positioned flaps had a negative impact on landing performance due to interference with the deck.


I wonder if a taller tailwheel would help to alleviate the contact with the deck.

This bounce must have been scary, even without the hokey music.




The Brits seem to be landing fine though, as shown below. A big benefit of the Corsair vs. the Seafire was the former's power folding wings. A lot easier than this.


----------



## RCAFson (Mar 9, 2021)

Admiral Beez said:


> The folding wing, oleo-fixed, longer range Seafire should have been in development before Churchill became PM in May 1940. As FSL in 1939 he should have been pushing the Air Ministry for the best aircraft for his carriers.... namely the Seafire. In short, no Fulmar, make folding Seafires.


That would mean no Fulmar and no Seafire. There's no way that a Seafire could be designed and produced before the BofB, and then not till 1941, so then no Fulmar and no Seafire either.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Mar 9, 2021)

RCAFson said:


> That would mean no Fulmar and no Seafire. There's no way that a Seafire could be designed and produced before the BofB, and then not till 1941, so then no Fulmar and no Seafire either.


Toss the Fulmar for certain. When Supermarine presents the Spitfire to the Air Ministry in March 1936 the AM says, also make one for the FAA, but with folding wings and suitable undercarriage.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 9, 2021)

Admiral Beez said:


> The folding wing, oleo-fixed, longer range Seafire should have been in development before Churchill became PM in May 1940. As FSL in 1939 he should have been pushing the Air Ministry for the best aircraft for his carriers.... namely the Seafire. In short, no Fulmar, make folding Seafires.




We have been over this before. 
Production contract for 127 Fulmars was placed in Mid 1938, soon raised to 250 aircraft. 
Canceling that contract and trying to design folding wing Spitfires in 1939 would definity mean no Fulmars and no Seafires in 1940/41. 
Only 159 Fulmars were completed in 1940.

Lets not forget that the Specification that lead to the Firefly was issued early in 1940 but that was the result of a number of talks going back a year or more and the "estimate" that the Griffon engine would produce 2000hp in production form. It would eventually get there but not for 3-4 years. 
The Firefly was ordered off the drawing board in June of 1940, it took until Dec of 1941 for the prototype to fly and until Dec of 1942 for all three prototypes and 20 production aircraft to be built. Not saying the Firefly was a great airplane, just pointing out how long it took to go from an "idea" to actual production aircraft. Granted a folding wing Spitfire would be easier but it is not a couple of weeks or even a couple of months job. Especially if there is no overwhelming for it. The Firefly and the Griffon engine were both delayed at times due to RR concentrating on the Merlin in Aug 1940 and other production priorities. 

Quite a few engine and aircraft programs were put on hold during the summer and fall of 1940. 

I would also note than in Jan of 1940 the home fighter squadrons of the RAF (not counting the ones in France or Mid east) had only 13 squadrons of Spitfires and one more squadron had one flight. Something like 18 fighter squadrons had Bristol Blenheims and 2 had Gladiators (two more Gladiator squadrons were in France and four more were in the Mideast).

Anything delaying production of Spitfires at this point would be critical. Castle Bromwich didn't get sorted out until mid summer of 1940. Setting up another Spitfire production line and getting it sorted out would have taken how long? 
Another production source might have come in very handy in Sept, Oct, Nov of 1940 after the main Supermarine plant was bombed but then I doubt production would have gone to teh RN.

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


----------



## Admiral Beez (Mar 9, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> We have been over this before.


You have, yes. I’m suggesting the Seafire contract is requested in 1936, when the Spitfire is first flown for the AM. Thus no Fulmar, the Fulmar is not canceled, it never exists.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Mar 9, 2021)

Admiral Beez said:


> Toss the Fulmar for certain. When Supermarine presents the Spitfire to the Air Ministry in March 1936 the AM says, also make one for the FAA, but with folding wings and suitable undercarriage.


That's completely unrealistic. The Supermarine design team had it's hands full just refining the basic design and barely did that in time for 1939.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 9, 2021)

Then why all the talk about Churchill in 1940 or when he was first sea lord in 1939?



Admiral Beez said:


> As* FSL in 1939* he should have been pushing the Air Ministry for the best aircraft for his carriers.... namely the Seafire. In short, no Fulmar, make folding Seafires.



The first 310 Spitfires were actually ordered a few weeks before the Blackburn Skua. It is not like they didn't know it existed. However the Spitfire might not have meet requirements for what the RAF was looking for when it came to planes for the RN. 
The First Seafires were modified MK Vb aircraft with Merlin 45 engines and constant speed props. Using Merlin IIIs with even two pitch props (not fitted until about 3 years after first flight) might have made for rather exciting take-offs. I believe the MK Vbs also had modified landing gear from the MK I and II? 
The Spitfire I was rather short ranged for a naval aircraft of the mid to late 30s. It's ability to perform search/recon missions given the equipment of the late 1930s is certainly subject to question. It was not enough to be a good fighter, with the RNs small air groups they were looking (rightly or wrongly) for multi purpose aircraft and a Sea Spitfire I with Merlin III engine and questionable propeller was unlikely to fulfill more than one role.


----------



## fastmongrel (Mar 10, 2021)

The Fulmar needed more power. With a mix of Hindsightium and Handwavium the Royal Navy give Rolls-Royce a contract to develop a Buzzard sized version of the Merlin. Rolls-Royce put the effort they wasted on the Vulture, Peregrine and Exe into the new 36.7 litre engine. If the RN can prevent the RAF hogging all production of course.

A 1500hp engine in 1940 can't be too far out there. Fulmar will still be slower than a single seater but with +12psi boost should still be competitive in 1941/42.


----------



## pbehn (Mar 10, 2021)

Between 1936 an 1939 there was more talk about cancelling the Spitfire contract than expanding it to include a Seafire

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Mar 10, 2021)

pbehn said:


> Between 1936 an 1939 there was more talk about cancelling the Spitfire contract than expanding it to include a Seafire



Wasn't the plan to build no more after the order for 310 had been fulfilled.


----------



## pbehn (Mar 10, 2021)

fastmongrel said:


> Wasn't the plan to build no more after the order for 310 had been fulfilled.


I am sure an historian could point to many plans, cancellation was certainly considered more than once. Basically production was ridiculously low, not all Supermarines fault. Also it was already clear that the Spitfire was a better aircraft than the Hurricane. There were only 300+ produced with 100-120 in service when war was declared but by that time investment and commitment had increased a lot with a dedicated factory being built etc. Hindsight is a marvellous tool. Despite it being now obvious to everyone what was needed it wasn't at the time. The first Spitfires to be used for photo recon were delivered one month after war was declared.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 10, 2021)

We have mentioned this before, both the Sea Gladiator and the Fulmar were _interim _aircraft. They were not what what the FAA/RAF of the time wanted (they wanted something like the Firefly) but they were what they could _*get *_ based on equipment (engines/props etc) availability and production schedules. The Fulmar was based of the P.4/34 tactical bomber so they even had a flying prototype in late 1937 early 1938, still took until early 1940 to get production aircraft. Unless the basic requirement was changed the Spitfire wasn't going to meet the _perceived _need. Fulmar could stay in the air for 4 hours without a drop tank and carried double the ammo of a Spitfire or Hurricane. a lot less frequent landings to maintain a CAP. 

according to Wiki on the Seafire. 

"During late 1941 and early 1942, the Admiralty again assessed the Spitfire for possible conversion. In late 1941, a total of 48 Spitfire Mk Vb were converted by Air Training Service Ltd. at Hamble to become "hooked Spitfires". This was the *Seafire Mk Ib* and would be the first of several Seafire variants to reach the Fleet Air Arm. This version of the Seafire was mainly used to allow the Royal Navy to gain experience in operating the Spitfire on aircraft carriers. The main structural change was made to the lower rear fuselage which incorporated an A-frame style arrestor hook and strengthened lower longerons.[1] It was soon discovered that the fuselage, especially around hatches, was too weak for carrier operations. In an attempt to alleviate this condition, reinforcing strips were riveted around hatch openings and along the main fuselage longerons"

Now none of the modifications were really that difficult but we aren't to the folding wing yet. But think about that for moment. The RN had in 1941/42 a large number of Spitfires doing, for lack of a better term, _operational testing_. 
also from wiki" A further 118 Seafire Mk Ibs incorporating the fuselage reinforcements were modified from Spitfire Vbs by Cunliffe-Owen at Eastleigh and Air Training Service. These aircraft were equipped with Naval HF radio equipment and IFF equipment as well as a Type 72 homing beacon. " these were the aircraft that would go to sea in the first operational squadrons. yes the naval bits and pieces could have been fitted earlier. 

There was a long road between having the idea for a folding wing Spitfire and having said folding wing Spitfires actually show up on carriers and be able to conduct operations. It probably could have been speeded up but the idea that _all _that had to be done in 1936-37 was design the folding wing and put it into production may need a rethink. (Castle Bromwich was bitching about constant changes in the production drawings for the MK I and MK II in the spring/summer of 1940).


----------



## Admiral Beez (Mar 10, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> Then why all the talk about Churchill in 1940 or when he was first sea lord in 1939?


My idea was that the Seafire was already underway or in service when Churchill becomes FSL in 1939, and having been briefed on the RN's new fighter, may encourage him not to cancel it when he becomes PM in 1940. Without the Fulmar, what's Churchill's alternative, return to Gladiators?

Unless the Seafire is developed in 1937 and production begun in 1938, I don’t see it getting into service any earlier than historically. If it’s not flying and in service by 1939, the government or AM will cancel or postpone production to make room for Spitfires, which if there’s no Fulmar presents the FAA with big problems. And I see this as possible, a Seafire prototype, with folding wings and naval-spec undercarriage successfully lands on a carrier in 1937, impressing the RN, FAA and AM and putting the kibosh to any talk of the Fulmar or the dual seal fighter concept.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Mar 10, 2021)

The Corsair was quickly withdrawn from FAA service, why? Perhaps lend lease required them to be returned?


----------



## pbehn (Mar 10, 2021)

Admiral Beez said:


> The Corsair was quickly withdrawn from FAA service, why? Perhaps lend lease required them to be returned?


They were literally thrown over the side in some cases. LL may have required them to be returned but the USA was already full of planes being scrapped.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Mar 10, 2021)

pbehn said:


> They were literally thrown over the side in some cases. LL may have required them to be returned but the USA was already full of planes being scrapped.


I expect the French got some former British ones.


----------



## pbehn (Mar 10, 2021)

Admiral Beez said:


> I expect the French got some former British ones.


Dunno but on another forum thrown up by a Google search a guy said his father was on HMS formidable and they also threw Barracudas over the side to make hangar space for the clear up in Singapore.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Mar 10, 2021)

pbehn said:


> Dunno but on another forum thrown up by a Google search a guy said his father was on HMS formidable and they also threw Barracudas over the side to make hangar space for the clear up in Singapore.


Can you imagine the value today if those aircraft had been preserved? Well, no one wants a Barracuda, but a Seafire.... yes please.

https://www.historicandclassicaircraftsales.com/seafire-3

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Mar 10, 2021)

Admiral Beez said:


> Can you imagine the value today if those aircraft had been preserved? Well, no one wants a Barracuda, but a Seafire.... yes please.
> 
> https://www.historicandclassicaircraftsales.com/seafire-3


Well I suppose if they preserved a lot of them they wouldn't be worth much, there are stories that some scrap planes in US were valued on the fuel in the tank. Here is a picture of RAF Thruxton in May 1945 (from Wiki) The race circuit was made from the perimeter taxiways. Look how many planes are parked up, it says they were to go to USA, whether they did or not is another matter.


----------



## RCAFson (Mar 10, 2021)

pbehn said:


> Dunno but on another forum thrown up by a Google search a guy said his father was on HMS formidable and they also threw Barracudas over the side to make hangar space for the clear up in Singapore.



Theoretically, Formidable wasn't operating Barracudas at the end of the war.


----------



## nuuumannn (Mar 10, 2021)

A little bit of background on the FAA single-seater and specifically the RAF option. In the mid-30s, before even the Skua had entered service the Admiralty questioned the lack of a single-seater and in 1937 a meeting was held outlining what to do about it. The following is a clipping from an article I wrote for a local aviation magazine:

"Meanwhile, following the issuing of O.27/34 [Skua] and O.30/35 [Roc], the wisdom of the lack of a single-seat fighter was being questioned within the Admiralty in louder terms and in a meeting held on 22 October 1937, all in attendance agreed that the Skua and Roc would be obsolescent within two years. Three different scenarios were proposed that could resolve the problem; 1) conversion of an existing RAF fighter for carrier operation, 2) design and build a new 6 to 8 gun biplane fighter off the drawing board, or 3) continue with existing types until conversion of an existing RAF type could take place. No 3 was ruled out immediately, although agreement was met on the possible suitability of converting the Hawker Hurricane into a carrier fighter. Following this point, one admiral in attendance was heard to quip sardonically, “Any single-seater is better than nothing.”

The Hurricane was being discussed around the time it was entering RAF service. The Spitfire was soon to follow. A year later Richard Fairey was summoned to the Admiralty for a meeting about Swordfish production and the issue of building Spitfires under licence was raised. Again from the same article:

"At a meeting held with Richard Fairey in May 1938 it was put to him that his firm could possibly help in producing as many Sea Spitfires as possible by March 1940. Fairey, without any hint of surprise at the request, explicitly stated that it was not possible as his factories were busy with existing orders and that he only intended on building his own designs. After pressing, Fairey then stated that if he was to accept an order for Spitfires he would have to abandon work on types in production at the time, which would delay matters. The Admiralty representative then advised Fairey that the Fulmar would not receive any future orders, stating that the Spitfire was smaller and wouldn’t require as much effort to build. By the end of the meeting Fairey had stood his ground – there would be no Fairey built Spitfires."

This was the Sea Spitfire concept that Joe Smith of Supermarine had thrown together at the behest of the Admiralty, powered by a Griffon. As we already know, this wasn't pressed ahead with because the Air Ministry believed that Spitfire production was best served being for the RAF at that stage.

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


----------



## nuuumannn (Mar 10, 2021)

For the what-iffers, why not put a Griffon in the Fulmar...


----------



## Koopernic (Mar 10, 2021)

Admiral Beez said:


> The Corsair was quickly withdrawn from FAA service, why? Perhaps lend lease required them to be returned?



The lend lease agreement required that at the end of the war any aircaft that hadn’t been lost in operations be either purchased, retuned or destroyed. They were usually sold at somewhere between 10%-50% of book value if the British wanted them or could afford them.

The best use would have been scrap metal. Not sure if scrap for parts was allowed. I assume the USA didn’t want these weapons spoiling the market place.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Mar 10, 2021)

nuuumannn said:


> For the what-iffers, why not put a Griffon in the Fulmar...


isn't that a Firefly?


----------



## RCAFson (Mar 10, 2021)

Admiral Beez said:


> isn't that a Firefly?



No, the Firefly was a completely different design with a different design team.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Mar 10, 2021)

Admiral Beez said:


> isn't that a Firefly?



Nah, I meant a Griffon engined Fulmar. The Fulmar was by Fairey's long-standing designer Marcelle Lobelle, who left and went to form ML Aviation after leaving a design to the spec for the Firefly, but Fairey's new designer "Charlie" Chaplin no less (that's Herbert Chaplin), redrew the entire thing and the Firefly was based on his work.

Reactions: Creative Creative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Spitlead (Mar 10, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> The firebrand seems to have another characteristic undesirable in a carrier aircraft: a long nose thereby giving visibility issues. It’s likely caused by putting the fuel tanks ahead of the cockpit behind the engine. Aircaft such as the Hellcat, Fw 190 put it behind and underneath.
> 
> The Hellcat was considered viceless in terms of handling and had good visibility. The Corsair gets the glory only because of a post war 440mph variant with an powerful engine the Hellcat never got.
> 
> ...



To be fair, the Corsair was the better fighter compared to the Hellcat. That's why it was the longest produced U.S. piston engine fighter - 11 years. Granted, the Corsair had some early landing issues on carriers which arguably limited deployment to Marine squadrons during the war (Navy pilots generally did not use land bases). Some of the longevity of production was likely due to the Navy's issue with the new jets, taking off/landing on a carrier. However, looking at a mid-1943 Corsair compared to a 1943 F6F-5, the Corsair was faster and had a superior roll rate than the Hellcat. Hellcat was better at diving. I'm not at all implying the Hellcat was a bad fighter, just that the Corsair was better. Both used the same R-2800 engine, but Vought's design of a slimmer fuselage, closer cowled engine, cooling ducts in the wing and flush riveting throughout made the difference. Just my humble opinion.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Mar 10, 2021)

nuuumannn said:


> "At a meeting held with Richard Fairey in May 1938 it was put to him that his firm could possibly help in producing as many Sea Spitfires as possible by March 1940. Fairey then stated that if he was to accept an order for Spitfires he would have to abandon work on types in production at the time.


At that meeting Fairey should have been told, if he won't make the Seafire, we want a single seat Fulmar then. Make your two seaters to fill the immediate demand and then switch over to a single seat version.

But May 1938 was too late. The Fulmar program was already well underway. We need the Air Ministry to see the Spitfire in 1936 (shown below) and say ah ha we also need one for the Fleet Air Arm. We must kill the Fulmar in its conception phase.




Why the focus on Fairey anyway? Supermarine was owned by Vickers-Armstrong, one of the UK’s largest military suppliers. If not them, there are other players. Get the wing designed and CC&F or Canadian Vickers can have a go. But again, if this isn’t underway by 1937, I’d say it dies on the Exchequer vine in 1939/40.


----------



## nuuumannn (Mar 10, 2021)

Admiral Beez said:


> We must kill the Fulmar in its conception phase.



"yeeesssssss, my precioussss, we mustsss..."

LOTR The Two Towers - Gollum and Sméagol - YouTube

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Mar 10, 2021)

Admiral Beez said:


> Why the focus on Fairey anyway?



Because Fairey and Blackburn were the leading suppliers of aircraft to the Admiralty. Blackburn was busy with the Skua, which the Admiralty was beginning to not like, even before it entered service and Fairey already had the Fulmar, which, incidentally was ordered by the Air Ministry, not the Admiralty, Swordfish, Applecore etc, so it was busee. Perhaps Blackburn, although it'd be late, overweight, too complicated and too poor performing...


----------



## Admiral Beez (Mar 10, 2021)

Why didn't the Seafire ever have power folding wings like the Sea Fury, Corsair, Hellcat, etc?


----------



## RCAFson (Mar 10, 2021)

Admiral Beez said:


> Why didn't the Seafire ever have power folding wings like the Sea Fury, Corsair, Hellcat, etc?


The original design and F4F-4 prototype had power folding wings but they were deleted due to pilot concerns that the aircraft was underpowered and already overweight, The fact is that the Seafire wing folding mechanism was readily powered by the Armstrong method.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Mar 10, 2021)

RCAFson said:


> The fact is that the Seafire wing folding mechanism was readily powered by the Armstrong method.


You mean the strong arm method? I jest, but what is the tech you're referring to.






Just watch all these chaps clamouring over the wings at 6:36 to get this Seafire folded and sorted.




Here you can see the FAA's Corsair's wing unfolded without the engine running. I imagine the deck hands much preferred the auto fold aircraft.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 10, 2021)

We keep going over some of the same stuff.

The likelihood of a "single seat" Fulmar beng any good is about zero. 
That meaning a single fighter using much more than the instrument panel out of the Fulmar. 
Leaving the rear seater on the ground, shortening the canopy and plating over the hole does NOT change the performance of the aircraft much. 

If what is meant is single seat fighter _instead _of the Fulmar with all the expected performance of a single seat fighter than you are talking about an entirely new airframe and all the time and effort that that entails (10s of thousands of draftsmen hours to start with). 

A Fulmar used a bigger wing than the P-47 or F4U or even a P-38. There is no good way to cut it down to single seater size. 


For your early Seafire please consider the engines, props and perhaps the radios in service in 1937-38 vs what was in service in late 1941 and early 1942 (and the fuel).

The RN/FAA was barely using two pitch props, The land RAF was NOT using two pitch props on fighters. 87 octane was the fuel of the day. Were they even using HF radios?
Or I may be confusing things? Later land Spits getting VHF radios? 

Just because something was done in 1942 doesn't mean all the other bits and pieces that made it work were available in 1937.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Mar 10, 2021)

Admiral Beez said:


> You mean the strong arm method? I jest, but what is the tech you're referring to.
> 
> View attachment 615685
> 
> ...




It seems to take little effort and all of about 20-30sec to fold the wings manually. Hydraulic wing folding will add weight on an already overstressed arrestor and LGs, and will add extra maintenance. It would probably have delayed the Seafire III's introduction into 1944.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Mar 11, 2021)

RCAFson said:


> It seems to take little effort and all of about 20-30sec to fold the wings manually. Hydraulic wing folding will add weight on an already overstressed arrestor and LGs, and will add extra maintenance. It would probably have delayed the Seafire III's introduction into 1944.


What was the Armstrong method you were referring to?


----------



## Koopernic (Mar 11, 2021)

Spitlead said:


> To be fair, the Corsair was the better fighter compared to the Hellcat. That's why it was the longest produced U.S. piston engine fighter - 11 years. Granted, the Corsair had some early landing issues on carriers which arguably limited deployment to Marine squadrons during the war (Navy pilots generally did not use land bases). Some of the longevity of production was likely due to the Navy's issue with the new jets, taking off/landing on a carrier. However, looking at a mid-1943 Corsair compared to a 1943 F6F-5, the Corsair was faster and had a superior roll rate than the Hellcat. Hellcat was better at diving. I'm not at all implying the Hellcat was a bad fighter, just that the Corsair was better. Both used the same R-2800 engine, but Vought's design of a slimmer fuselage, closer cowled engine, cooling ducts in the wing and flush riveting throughout made the difference. Just my humble opinion.



Forward visibility is a big issue for a carrier fighter and the raised cockpit did that, no slimmer fuselage, and we’ve seen RCAFsons stats on how damaging accidents can be. Interestingly out of Corsair, P-51, Hellcat, P47 the Hellcat had the higher climb rate. It might have been possible to improve the roll rate, probably just a matter of modifying the ailerons and their spring tabs. Perhaps the chin intercooler of the Hellcat could have been moved to the leading edges as per the Corsair by fitting the R-2800-8.

There is a nice comparison here:
http://acversailles.free.fr/documen...uire/Essais_en_vol/Flight_test_comparison.pdf

Grumman had the Bearcat and improving the Hellcat was pointless. 

So, I agree that the Corsair was the better fighter and more enduring in the long term but for a few critical years the Hellcat was overall more effective.

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


----------



## fastmongrel (Mar 11, 2021)

Admiral Beez said:


> What was the Armstrong method you were referring to?



It uses Handraulics

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


----------



## special ed (Mar 11, 2021)

The same as the cars in the 1940s. Power steering by Armstrong.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Mar 11, 2021)

Admiral Beez said:


> What was the Armstrong method you were referring to?



Manual wing folding, as per the video.


----------



## nuuumannn (Mar 26, 2021)

Admiral Beez said:


> What was the Armstrong method you were referring to?



Break it down.. arm, strong = man powered, like the Mk.1 Eye Ball as your search equipment.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 17, 2022)

A video I just finished watching, about the Seafire. Interesting discussion,

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


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Jun 23, 2022)

Corsair was 100 times better than the Seafire, any version

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 24, 2022)

You know the guys are going to make you show the math on that equation.

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


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 24, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> You know the guys are going to make you show the math on that equation.


Nope, just file it under fiction.

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


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Jun 24, 2022)

Both Seafire and Corsair had serious problems being adapted for Carrier landings initially, but these issues were worked out with the Corsair, while they never really were with the Seafire. 

I think that video upthread a few posts is a pretty good overview with a couple of caveats. The Seafire had a ton of problems, it may have had it's moment against Kamikazes briefly late in the Pacific War, but by and large it was sorted out (to the extent that it was) too late. It was a disaster at Salerno. 

I'm not sure I agree with the narrator that it's armament compares so well to a Hellcat either, which is one of the few points I'd disagree with the narrator on. I also don't think the Sea Hurricanes main problem was the .303 armament.

But it's also true that for the RN, both the Hellcat and the Corsair came a little too late to make a big difference. The critical moments with the convoys and Battle of the Atlantic were fought with Skuas, Sea Gladiators, Sea Hurricanes, the incredibly desperate "Hurricats" (which must have had some of the bravest and lonliest pilots of the war), Fulmars, and to a lesser extent, Martlets. They did their best with what they had and just about managed, saving Malta by a tenuous thread. And getting just enough of those Arctic convoys through to help keep the Soviets alive during their most critical phase.

Aside from landing and general carrier ops problems, Seafires (and Sea Hurricanes) just had too short of a range and endurance. I'm not sure the low altitude engine was a great idea either, something FAA was obsessed with. It could come in handy for example against Kamikaze strikes and torpedo planes, but it limits versatility. Sometimes you want CAP flying higher.

The part at the end about their using 90 gallon P-40 drop tanks was interesting, I'd like to see some harder numbers on it.

Overall though I think F4U and F6F were much better naval aircraft than a Seafire.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 24, 2022)

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> the incredibly desperate "Hurricats" (which must have had some of the bravest and lonliest pilots of the war),


The CAM ships may have been unusual and even desperate but they worked. 9 launches, 9 kills (not one kill per launch) with others driven away. One pilot died from injuries baling out, one other injured. In air defence of anything that is about as good as it can get. CAM ship - Wikipedia

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


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Jun 24, 2022)

pbehn said:


> The CAM ships may have been unusual and even desperate but they worked. 9 launches, 9 kills (not one kill per launch) with others driven away. One pilot died from injuries baling out, one other injured. In air defence of anything that is about as good as it can get. CAM ship - Wikipedia



Yeah no denying it, they worked. I didn't realize the causualty rates were so low. Ditching in the North Atlantic doesn't sound fun. But those guys were badass. 

I find the air combat way out to sea really fascinating. We got into some of the bomber vs bomber battles in another thread.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 24, 2022)

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> Yeah no denying it, they worked. I didn't realize the causualty rates were so low. Ditching in the North Atlantic doesn't sound fun. But those guys were badass.
> 
> I find the air combat way out to sea really fascinating. We got into some of the bomber vs bomber battles in another thread.


I think they parachuted out, its far safer and they were baling out over a fleet, Hurricanes were just not made to ditch in water.. One pilot landed in Russia. 4 condors 1 Ju88 and 4 He 111s in exchange for 8 obsolete Hurricanes would have ended the Battle of Britain in weeks.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 24, 2022)

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> Overall though I think F4U and F6F were much better naval aircraft than a Seafire.




A lot of difference between "much better", twice as good, and 100 times better. 

For some reason the Spitfire very, very rarely got two speed single stage superchargers, either Seafires or land based. 
So for Seafires it was either a high flying single speed Merlin or a low flying single speed Merlin or a Griffon engine. 
Not sure if fitting Merlin 32s to some Seafires was an attempt at engine standardization with the Barracuda?

Now figure out which aircraft were in squadron service when. RN was getting their first 1/2 dozen or so F6Fs about the time of Salerno. 

Just as an aside the Wildcat had a wheeltrack of 6 ft 5in and had over 12in of oleo stroke. Wildcats had some deck handling (or shore runway problems of their own.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Jun 24, 2022)

Shortround6 said:


> A lot of difference between "much better", twice as good, and 100 times better.



Well that's true, 100 times is hyperbole. I just feel that Seafire, for most of it's career, wasn't really suitable as a carrier aircraft.

They may have been good at chasing Kamikazes but so were Corsairs by that time.


Shortround6 said:


> For some reason the Spitfire very, very rarely got two speed single stage superchargers, either Seafires or land based.
> So for Seafires it was either a high flying single speed Merlin or a low flying single speed Merlin or a Griffon engine.
> Not sure if fitting Merlin 32s to some Seafires was an attempt at engine standardization with the Barracuda?


Another RN aircraft best not thought about too much...



Shortround6 said:


> Now figure out which aircraft were in squadron service when. RN was getting their first 1/2 dozen or so F6Fs about the time of Salerno.
> 
> Just as an aside the Wildcat had a wheeltrack of 6 ft 5in and had over 12in of oleo stroke. Wildcats had some deck handling (or shore runway problems of their own.



I don't think it was comparable with the issues they had with the Seafire. Be glad to see hard (operational) numbers though if you have any.


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Jun 24, 2022)

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> Both Seafire and Corsair had serious problems being adapted for Carrier landings initially, but these issues were worked out with the Corsair, while they never really were with the Seafire.
> 
> I think that video upthread a few posts is a pretty good overview with a couple of caveats. The Seafire had a ton of problems, it may have had it's moment against Kamikazes briefly late in the Pacific War, but by and large it was sorted out (to the extent that it was) too late. It was a disaster at Salerno.
> 
> ...


USN thought that 1 20mm was the equal of 2 to 3 50 cal. The USN wanted to employ 20mm cannon instead of .50 but production difficulties prevented that. 
Carrier warfare was much lower level than the air war over Europe. CAP was 20,000 ft max. The R-2800 2-stage supercharged wasn't a spectacular engine at altitude in any event. The Bearcat was specifically tailored for low altitude performance with a single stage R-2800. Tailoring the Merlin for increased performance at lower altitudes was an excellent decision.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 24, 2022)

Reluctant Poster said:


> The Bearcat was specifically tailored for low altitude performance with a single stage R-2800.


The Bearcat cheated  

The F8F-1 got a "C" series engine, the -34. Modifications to the supercharger (and an extra 100rpm) got an extra 100hp military power at 3000ft in low gear compared to 2000hp at 1500ft that the "B" series had in low gear. However it was the 1700hp at 16,000ft instead of 1600hp at 13,500ft that helped bridge the gap between the 2 speed engines and the 2 stage engines. 
The "B" series two stage engines were good for 2000hp to 1000ft in neutral (engine supercharger turning), 1800hp at 15,500ft in low gear and 1650hp at 22,000ft in high gear.

the real "cheat" comes in with the *F8F-2 *which used an "E" series engine which among other things (Like 115/145 fuel) used a new single stage supercharger with a variable hydraulic drive. 
This allowed for 2250hp Military power at sea level and 1600hp at 22,000ft. So it was within 50hp of the old two stage engine at altitude. 

To almost round out the story the "C" series engines used in the F4F-4 Corsairs (-18) were good for 2100hp to 1000ft in neutral (engine supercharger turning), 1900hp at 14,000ft in low gear and 1800hp at 23,000ft in high gear.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 24, 2022)

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> I don't think it was comparable with the issues they had with the Seafire. Be glad to see hard (operational) numbers though if you have any.


 The Wildcat had issues, they were different issues. The long travel soft landing gear soaked up carrier landings pretty well. The landing gear kept the props out of the deck planking. They may have tracked fairly well. On land bases they didn't handle cross winds well and they known to to dip a wing on rough strips or in cross winds and put a wing tip into the ground. These may have been lower speed accidents and more easily repairable?

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Jun 25, 2022)

Reluctant Poster said:


> USN thought that 1 20mm was the equal of 2 to 3 50 cal. The USN wanted to employ 20mm cannon instead of .50 but production difficulties prevented that.


I know that 20mm is better, but I don't care what the "USN thought", one 20mm, especially one carrying 60 rounds of ammunition, is definitely *not* equivalent to 3 x .50 cals.

12.7 x 99mm API_ round_ has velocity of 890 m/s, weighs 43 grams, carries 2% incendiary
20 x 110mm round has velocity of 860 m/s, weighs 130 grams, carries 8% HE

12.7mm ROF 13 rounds per second,
20mm Hispano II ROF 10 rounds per second

six 12.7mm Browning = 78 rounds per second, at 43 grams, a 'weight' of 3,354 grams, or 3+ kg at 890 m/s = KE of 1,328,351.7 Joules
two 20mm Hispano II = 20 rounds per second, at 130 grams, a 'weight' of 2,600 grams, or 2+ kg at 860 m/s = KE of 961,480 Joules

Add four .303 = 20 rounds per second, 11 grams, that's another 220 grams at 760 m/s

With the cannon armament, all of your power is basically in those two guns. If they fail, or miss, you got nothing. With the six .50 cals, you can have a couple of them jam and you are still good, and you are sending four times as many bullets down range, in a flatter trajectory, and are thus more likely to hit something most of the time. The 20mm has the HE shell burst but that isn't such a huge difference as to make up for that.

More important, the Seafire carried 60 round drums for each of those 20mms, whereas the Hellcat carried 400 rounds per gun, the Corsair carried 400 and 375. That makes a big difference, 60 rounds goes quickly (unless the guns jam).



Reluctant Poster said:


> Carrier warfare was much lower level than the air war over Europe. CAP was 20,000 ft max. The R-2800 2-stage supercharged wasn't a spectacular engine at altitude in any event. The Bearcat was specifically



It was lower than the air war over Europe but performance at 20 or 25,000 feet was still important. That's why the P-38 did so well in the Pacific.

The R-2800 was performing quite well at those altitudes, and the F4U was definitely much faster than the Seafire. According to "Armored Carriers", kind of a fan page for the RN, Seafires made claims of 39 enemy aircraft shot down in the whole war. I know that is not really a fair comparison as it's partly a measure of opportunity, but lets compare anyway:

F6F (US use) 5160 in the Pacific and 8 in Europe
F4U (US use) 2140 in the Pacific
Wildcats (US use) 986 in the Pacific and 26 in the Med where they were only very briefly engaged. (FM-2s claimed another 400+)

Lets compare performance:
*Seafire*
Seafire IIC gets 342 mph at 20,000 ft, about 320 mph at 16,000 ft
Seafire Mk III gets 338 at 20,000 ft. 351 mph at 10,000 ft, 312 at Sea Level,

*Hellcat*
F6F-3 gets 379 mph at 23,000 ft, 360 mph at 20,000 ft, about 310 mph at Sea Level
F6F-5 gets 390 mph at 24,000 ft, 380 at 15,000 ft, 318 at Sea Level (at military power)

*Corsair*
F4U-1 gets 430 mph at 20,000 ft (WEP) or 415 mph at 22,000 ft (military power) and 365 / 350 at Sea Level
(British) FG-1 gets 389 mph at 23,000 ft, 330 at Sea Level (this is a lower power setting 28" Hg, apparently they were having trouble during the test)

Nevertheless, even the one in the British test blows away the Seafire at all altitudes.

Seafire did climb better, especially down low, which is good for a Naval fighter, but I think they were actually kind of anemic at altitude which was also needed (especially for example facing dive bombers and their escorts)

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


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Jun 25, 2022)

Shortround6 said:


> The Wildcat had issues, they were different issues. The long travel soft landing gear soaked up carrier landings pretty well. The landing gear kept the props out of the deck planking. They may have tracked fairly well. On land bases they didn't handle cross winds well and they known to to dip a wing on rough strips or in cross winds and put a wing tip into the ground. These may have been lower speed accidents and more easily repairable?


Apparently Seafires had a particular problem with cracking their props on the decks


----------



## EwenS (Jun 25, 2022)

IIRC the only US carriers to venture into the Med operationally in WW2 were:-

Wasp in April / May 1942 ferrying Spitfires to Malta. She retained at least 11 of the 27 F4F-4 of VF-71 during these operations, having left the rest of her airgroup ashore at Hatston in the Orkney Islands. They only flew CAP and had no engagement with the enemy.

The CVEs Kasaan Bay and Tulagi in Aug 1944 for Operation Dragoon. They took the Hellcat equipped VF-74 (32 F6F-5/3N) and VOF-1 (26 F6F-5) into action over Southern France.

Ranger took the F4F-4 (24 aircraft) equipped VF-4 with her while operating with the Home Fleet between Aug & Nov 1943.

And this ignores all the CVE operating in the Atlantic with composite squadrons containing F4F-4/FM-1/FM-2 from in the ASW role from early 1943, as well as the US carriers involved in Operation Torch in Nov 1942.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## yulzari (Jun 25, 2022)

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> Corsair was 100 times better than the Seafire, any version


I know which one was thrown over the side into the ocean at the end of the war………

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ThomasP (Jun 25, 2022)

Hey Wild_Bill_Kelso,

re "The 20mm has the HE shell burst but that isn't such a huge difference as to make up for that."

While the 20mm AP/I also had about 25%-30% more penetration than the .50 cal AP/I, the HE content was what made most of the difference. The increased penetration meant that the 20mm was more likely to reach something important, like the fuel tanks, engine, pilot, etc. The explosive content of the HE round meant that if it hit the fuel tank there was near zero chance of the self-sealing materials being effective, plus near misses to the pilot or other important items in the aircraft could still cause a mission kill or shoot down. 20mm HE rounds were often able to destroy enough skin and control surfaces to cause loss of aerodynamic control.

The USN switched over to 700-750 rpm 20mm cannon as soon as they reasonably could after the war, in spite of the fact that there were .50 cal variants that fired at 1300 rpm. The USAF took until the post-Korean War period to change over. If not for the large number of .50 cal guns left over after the war, along with around 500,000,000 rounds in storage, the USAF would have switched over to 20mm sooner.


re ammo loads for the Seafire

Seafire Mk IIC and Mk III had belt-fed versions of the 20mm, with 120 rpg.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 25, 2022)

ThomasP said:


> The USN switched over to 700-750 rpm 20mm cannon as soon as they reasonably could after the war, in spite of the fact that there were .50 cal variants that fired at 1300 rpm. The USAF took until the post-Korean War period to change over. The USAF would have changed over sooner, but there were so many .50 cal guns left over after the war, and around 500,000,000 rounds in storage.


It is a bit more complicated than that. The M3 .50 cal did fire at 1200-1300rpm, but the M3 had to be built as such, it could not be converted with a parts kit. So all the .50 cal armed jet fighters got new build guns. The Jets were also using the M23 incendiary without the armor piercing core that the M8 API used. Much higher veleocity and much more incendiary material. However ALL USAAF night/all weather (except the F-82?) got 20mm guns or were planed for 20mm guns so the USAAF seemed to be of 2 minds. 
But in either case they were not using left over WW II guns or leftover .50 cal ammo.
What the Piston powered planes got is another story. 

And yes the USAAF did take the wrong path but it was not the surplus path.


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Jun 25, 2022)

Shortround6 said:


> A lot of difference between "much better", twice as good, and 100 times better.
> 
> For some reason the Spitfire very, very rarely got two speed single stage superchargers, either Seafires or land based.
> So for Seafires it was either a high flying single speed Merlin or a low flying single speed Merlin or a Griffon engine.
> Not sure if fitting Merlin 32s to some Seafires was an attempt at engine standardization with the Barracuda?


In fact the longer engine mount would have helped the Seafires CoG issues (due to the weight of the arrestor hook)


----------



## EwenS (Jun 25, 2022)

There are a few things about the Seafire operations at Salerno that usually go unmentioned but which had a big impact on the overall loss and damage figures.

Firstly, many of the pilots were inexperienced, being the product of the rapid increase in the size of the FAA in WW2. Added to that 6 of the 11 squadrons in Forces V had only begun to operate the Seafire from March 1943, with 2 of those having had fighter flights of Seafires added to their main equipment of ASW Swordfish in June (the Swordfish were ashore during Avalanche).

The Seafires on the fleet carriers in the Med in 1943 do not seem to have suffered anything like the losses suffered by Force V off Salerno. That includes the two squadrons on Illustrious & Formidable during that operation. The other fleet carrier operating Seafires at that time was Indomitable carrying some 40 in July 1943. But she was torpedoed and her 3 squadrons were transferred to the escort carriers Battler, Stalker and Hunter between the 11 & 28 August 1943 giving them very little opportunity to adjust to the much smaller flight decks before sailing for Avalanche (36 of the 106 Seafires deployed in Force V came from these 3 squadrons).

On top of that the carriers had little opportunity to work together prior to the operation. While the 4 CVE departed the UK together, they encountered a severe gale en route which prevented flying and forced Hunter back for repairs. So while 3 arrived at Gib on 9 Aug, Hunter only arrived on the 24th. They sailed from Malta for Avalanche late on 7th Sept. There was therefore very little time for them to work up as a group.

Unicorn, despite having the largest flight deck in Force V seems to have suffered the greatest losses. Crossing her stern has been described as being like falling off a cliff due to the airflow characteristics around her stern due to her aircraft maintenance ship design origins. Not good news for the Seafire with its fragile undercarriage.

Then we have to add in the low winds experienced during the operation and a carrier group limited to 18 knots, the max speed of the CVE. Added to that the Seafire L.IIc being operated were incompatible with the US catapult gear (The Seafire XV which entered service from May 1945 was the first British aircraft designed for tail down launching US style. And RATOG was in the future.

All of this wouldn't have been a problem if the landings had gone as planned. Force V was scheduled to provide air cover for 1 day until an airfield could be built ashore. Ultimately it was tasked for 3 days.

In 1943 the only fighters available to the FAA were the Sea Hurricane, Martlet and Seafire with the Seafire being the fastest of the lot. The first Corsir squadron formed in June 1943 in the USA and the first squadron received Hellcats while in Northern Ireland in July.

I posted details of the story behind the acquisition of the P-40 drop tanks by the BPF last Oct on another thread. I'll repeat it here for simplicity.

_"When the British Pacific Fleet formed in Nov 1944, Indefatigable was the only carrier with Seafires as its main fighter type. The others three were using Corsairs and Hellcats. Due to its short range and good performance at lower levels Indefatigable's Seafire squadrons were initially used to provide CAP for the Fleet. At that time only the 30 & 45 gal slipper tanks seem to have been available to them. However in June 1945 it became apparent that both Indefatigable and the newly arrived Implacable, also with Seafires, would need to play a far greater offensive role in upcoming operations over Japan itself. Why? Because Seafires would form a much greater proportion of the fighters on the carriers (Indomitable with Hellcats was in refit so it was going to be 2 with Corsairs and 2 with Seafires). Both ships then began looking for a solution to increase the range of their Seafire III.

Indefatigable, being in Australia at the time, after operation Iceberg, talked to the RAAF, and obtained a supply of 90 gal slipper tanks from them.

Implacable was in Manus in the Admiralty Is at the beginning of June 1945. Her Seafire squadrons experimented with the 30, 45 and 90 gal slipper tanks but they experienced problems with the connections on them. After talking to the Americans, it was discovered that there was a supply of 89 or 90 imp gal drop tanks (sources vary on the exact size) at a base in New Guinea that looked, from the drawings they were able to obtain, like they might prove suitable. A deal was done (currency changed hands - 2 "crates" of Johnny Walker whisky according to Commander Mike Crosley, the 880 squadron CO on Implacable) and a destroyer despatched to collect them. 100 "rusty" P-40 drop tanks were put aboard the carrier on her return to Manus on 17 June from Operation Inmate to Truk. The Seafire bomb racks were then modified by the ship's engineering staff to allow these tanks to be carried. That work was complete by the time she sailed for Japanese waters with the rest of the Fleet on 28 June 1945. And very successful they proved in July/Aug operations off Japan. But there was never an official clearance for the use of these tanks.


That is not to say that they 45 90 gal slipper tanks did not prove equally successful in these operations. Implacable was, by all accounts, a very happy and efficient ship. It is just that her air group has attracted much more attention. She carried official photographers and a film crew so there is much more coverage of her July/Aug operations off japan than probably any of the other RN carriers. And of course Mike Crosley and others who were serving aboard her have written their autobiographies covering the period."_

There were constant improvements to the Seafire as each model came along. The Mk.XV, which entered production in late 1944, saw the introduction of the "sting" hook as seen on US aircraft to the production line around April 1945. A vast improvement to the undercarriage was made with the Mk.XVII which was both stronger and had a increased oleo stroke. It began to roll off the production lines in small numbers from April 1945 with the first squadron receiving them in Sept 1945.

While the Seafire attracts a lot of attention for Avalanche it receives very little for the rest of its wartime career when loss rates were much lower as experience was gained with them. So we have:-

Operation Torch - initial deployment in 5 squadrons
Operation Husky - 3 squadrons on Indomitable and 1 on Formidable
D-Day - operations from land bases in southern England for gunnery spotting
Operation Dragoon - 4 CVE with 4 squadrons
Operations in the Aegean between Sept & Nov 1944 with same 4 squadrons
Operations off Norway throughout 1944 that involved 4 squadrons
Operation Meridian off Sumatra and Iceberg off Okinawa with Indefatigable
Final operations off Japan in July/Aug 1945 with 4 squadrons on Indefatigable and Implacable where the Seafires took on an offensive role for the first time in the war against Japan
Operations in the East Indies in 1945 involving 3 squadrons.

I note a degree of criticism about the Seafire's performance at high (20,000 ft) altitudes. When it was drawing up specifications for fighters in 1940 the spec that led to the Firefly sought an aircraft with a max speed at an operational height of 15,000ft and the Firebrand spec at 15-20,000ft because that was where the FAA expected to fight. As it turned out the vast majority of the of work asked of FAA fighters occurred below 10,000ft. Why? Because the targets were shadowers and medium level and low level torpedo bombers. The conclusion reached was that it was better to catch low level fast recce aircraft before they could report the position of the fleet. Early Seafire Ib proved incapable of catching Ju88s so that led to the development of the L.IIc where the "rate of climb and initial acceleration were far in excess of any other naval fighter produced during the war..." (The Seafire The Spitfire that went to Sea by David Brown). With that in mind the FAA chose to have about half of the Seafire IIc and most of the Seafire III delivered with engines rated for maximum performance at low levels, those being Merlin 32 and 55M. And also why the next development was to Griffon engined variants with similarly low rated engines.

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


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Jun 25, 2022)

ThomasP said:


> Hey Wild_Bill_Kelso,
> 
> re "The 20mm has the HE shell burst but that isn't such a huge difference as to make up for that."
> 
> ...


Thank you for saving me a post! A 20 mm shell was a 100 times better than a 50 cal!

One of my favorite reports, which I recommend everyone one TRULY interested in the subject should read, " Aircraft Vulnerability in World War II" by the Rand Corporation states the following:
"Serious damage is defined as that which had no significant influence on effective operation of the aircraft as a military weapon, slight damage as that which had no significant influence.
The above table shows that of the damage on returned aircraft approximately one-third of damage due to anti-aircraft fire, one-fourth of damage due to .30 and .50 caliber fire, and two thirds of damage due to 20mm fire was serious."
This data is presented in the table "Degree of Damage to USN Aircraft by Japanese Action September 1944 - August 1945". Note that much of the 20mm must have come from the Oerlikon based weapons used by the Japanese Zero which had much less penetrating power than the Hispano.
In the interest of fairness (there's a concept) I further parsed the data for the .50 from the .30. 40% of the damage due to .50 caliber fire was serious. This was still significantly less than the destruction caused by the 20 mm.


----------



## EwenS (Jun 25, 2022)

Reluctant Poster said:


> In fact the longer engine mount would have helped the Seafires CoG issues (due to the weight of the arrestor hook)


It would also have added to the difficulties of deck landing them due to the view over an even longer nose. When the Mk.XV came along the Griffon had a lower thrust line which did not cause so much of a problem.


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Jun 25, 2022)

EwenS said:


> IIRC the only US carriers to venture into the Med operationally in WW2 were:-
> 
> Wasp in April / May 1942 ferrying Spitfires to Malta. She retained at least 11 of the 27 F4F-4 of VF-71 during these operations, having left the rest of her airgroup ashore at Hatston in the Orkney Islands. They only flew CAP and had no engagement with the enemy.
> 
> ...



There was the fighting around the Torch landing, when the USN engaged the Vichy French for a short but violent engagement, and both sides claimed a fair number of casualties. That is probably where most of the 27 F4F victories in the Med come from.


----------



## EwenS (Jun 25, 2022)

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> There was the fighting around the Torch landing, when the USN engaged the Vichy French for a short but violent engagement, and both sides claimed a fair number of casualties. That is probably where most of the 27 F4F victories in the Med come from.


Then someone's geography is a bit off. During Operation Torch, the US carriers (Ranger, Sangamon, Suwannee, Santee and Chenango) never entered the Med. They covered the US Western Task Force landings in Morocco on the Atlantic coast.






The Centre and Eastern Task Forces were covered by British carriers.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Jun 25, 2022)

ThomasP said:


> Hey Wild_Bill_Kelso,
> 
> re "The 20mm has the HE shell burst but that isn't such a huge difference as to make up for that."
> 
> While the 20mm AP/I also had about 25%-30% more penetration than the .50 cal AP/I, the HE content was what made most of the difference. The increased penetration meant that the 20mm was more likely to reach something important, like the fuel tanks, engine, pilot, etc. The explosive content of the HE round meant that if it hit the fuel tank there was *near zero chance of the self-sealing materials being effective*, plus near misses to the pilot or other important items in the aircraft could still cause a mission kill or shoot down. 20mm HE rounds were often able to destroy enough skin and control surfaces to cause loss of aerodynamic control.



You are overstating the case there. I know for a fact that numerous US and UK fighters operating in the Med and the Pacific survived multiple 20mm cannon strikes and flew home. The cannon shell explosion caused more damage but it was not going to automatically destroy a well built plane. 





This guy's 79th FG P-40 was hit with six 20mm cannon shells and made it back, including 3 in the wings (where there is a fuel tank) and one right behind the armor plate where he was sitting (where there is another fuel tank). He made it back and survived the war.

Conversely, aircraft like the Hellcat, Corsair, P-40, and P-51 which had the typical six .50 cal armament had very little trouble shooting down Axis fighters, particularly in the Pacific where most of the Naval combat was taking place. There is no getting around that six guns shoot more bullets than two guns.


ThomasP said:


> The USN switched over to 700-750 rpm 20mm cannon as soon as they reasonably could after the war, in spite of the fact that there were .50 cal variants that fired at 1300 rpm. The USAF took until the post-Korean War period to change over. If not for the large number of .50 cal guns left over after the war, along with around 500,000,000 rounds in storage, the USAF would have switched over to 20mm sooner.
> 
> 
> re ammo loads for the Seafire
> ...


Apparently some of the later Seafire marks that had the belt fed guns had ammunition left out to save weight.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Jun 25, 2022)

yulzari said:


> I know which one was thrown over the side into the ocean at the end of the war………



Corsairs were still being used by multiple nations through the Korean War and into the 60s. Were Seafires?


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Jun 25, 2022)

EwenS said:


> There are a few things about the Seafire operations at Salerno that usually go unmentioned but which had a big impact on the overall loss and damage figures.
> 
> Firstly, many of the pilots were inexperienced, being the product of the rapid increase in the size of the FAA in WW2. Added to that 6 of the 11 squadrons in Forces V had only begun to operate the Seafire from March 1943, with 2 of those having had fighter flights of Seafires added to their main equipment of ASW Swordfish in June (the Swordfish were ashore during Avalanche).
> 
> ...



That's all interesting but it sounds to me like a lot of excuses. There were issues with carriers, issues with training, problematic weather, crew experience, all of that was commonplace. It's great that they finally found some useful external tanks for the Seafire but the Corsair and Hellcat could also carry external fuel tanks. - in fact they carried two, how many did the Seafire carry? The bottom line is that the Seafire's range and endurance was completely inadequate for a carrier based fighter. It meant that they were constantly having to land to refuel and couldn't escort bombers on long range strikes.



EwenS said:


> I note a degree of criticism about the Seafire's performance at high (20,000 ft) altitudes. When it was drawing up specifications for fighters in 1940 the spec that led to the Firefly sought an aircraft with a max speed at an operational height of 15,000ft and the Firebrand spec at 15-20,000ft because that was where the FAA expected to fight. As it turned out the vast majority of the of work asked of FAA fighters occurred below 10,000ft. Why? Because the targets were shadowers and medium level and low level torpedo bombers. The conclusion reached was that it was better to catch low level fast recce aircraft before they could report the position of the fleet. Early Seafire Ib proved incapable of catching Ju88s so that led to the development of the L.IIc where the "rate of climb and initial acceleration were far in excess of any other naval fighter produced during the war..." (The Seafire The Spitfire that went to Sea by David Brown). With that in mind the FAA chose to have about half of the Seafire IIc and most of the Seafire III delivered with engines rated for maximum performance at low levels, those being Merlin 32 and 55M. And also why the next development was to Griffon engined variants with similarly low rated engines.



Being able to climb fast is nice, but it isn't true that all recon aircraft fly by at 10,000 ft, nor are all aircraft that can sink ships low and slow torpedo bombers. Dive bombers were also a major problem, both in the Med and the Pacific. The Japanese Ki-46 for example often flew by at 20,000 ft and at quite a good clip, posing a challenge for Allied fighters to intercept. Nor was that the only fast and relatively high flying Japanese aircraft by the late war. The Germans of course had the Ju 88 and others.


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Jun 25, 2022)

EwenS said:


> Then someone's geography is a bit off. During Operation Torch, the US carriers (Ranger, Sangamon, Suwannee, Santee and Chenango) never entered the Med. They covered the US Western Task Force landings in Morocco on the Atlantic coast.
> View attachment 675075
> 
> 
> The Centre and Eastern Task Forces were covered by British carriers.



You would be wrong, my geography is just fine. I think you are trying to pick nits. I believe the Torch Landings were considered by the US War Department to be part of the MTO or "Mediterranean Theater of Operations" which is not constrained by the specific boundaries of the Mediterranean Sea. And that is what I pointed out the F4F victory claims in the MTO were likely attributed to.


----------



## EwenS (Jun 25, 2022)

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> Corsairs were still being used by multiple nations through the Korean War and into the 60s. Were Seafires?


The last RN combat operations with Seafires were on 25th Sept 1950 during the Korean War by the Seafire FR.47 of 800 squadron on HMS Triumph. Seafire F.17 & FR.47 lingered on until the end of 1954 in second line and RNVR squadrons.

France continued to use Mk.III then Mk.XV until 1950. Burma used denavalised F.XV between 1951 and 1954 and Ireland between 1947 & 1954. Canada used F.XV until 1948 with some lingering as trainers until the early 1950s.

Once WW2 wound down the only users of the F4U in its various guises were:-
USN & USMC - front line use of the Corsair ended in Dec 1955 with reserve units ceasing in 1957. 
France - between 1952 & 1964 in wars in Vietnam, Algeria and finally Suez. 
Argentina (1956-1968)
El Salvador (1957-1976)
Honduras (1956-1979) with the latter being the last user. Most famously used in the "Soccer War" of 1969

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Jun 25, 2022)

Look, let me cut to the chase. 

The Spitfire was an excellent land based fighter, especially as an interceptor and short range air superiority fighter.

The _Seafire_ was this same land based fighter hastily made into a carrier fighter, because the Sea Hurricane and Sea Gladiator could no longer do the job.

Not being designed to fly from a carrier, it was not structurally strong enough for landings (I remember something about a 'fish plate' being bolted on?) and did not have a slow enough approach speed. The earlier ones (until Seafire III) could not be made with folding wings so fewer of them could be stored on a carrier.

As a short range interceptor, it had very little endurance. Much less than any purpose built carrier fighter.

With the added naval gear, it was slow, slower than a Bf 109 or MC 202 / 205, slower than a Ki-61, and not much faster than a Ki-43 or A6M, which made it vulnerable.

It was better than nothing, and brave pilots made the best of it, but it does not compare as a carrier aircraft to the F6F, F4U, or even IMO to the F4F, nor the A6M.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Jun 25, 2022)

EwenS said:


> The last RN combat operations with Seafires were on 25th Sept 1950 during the Korean War by the Seafire FR.47 of 800 squadron on HMS Triumph. Seafire F.17 & FR.47 lingered on until the end of 1954 in second line and RNVR squadrons.
> 
> France continued to use Mk.III then Mk.XV until 1950. Burma used denavalised F.XV between 1951 and 1954 and Ireland between 1947 & 1954. Canada used F.XV until 1948 with some lingering as trainers until the early 1950s.
> 
> ...



Ok I stand corrected. I still think that a f***-ton more F4U were used post WW2 and it remained in use much longer. Note the French seemed to ditch the Seafire long before they did the Corsair.


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Jun 25, 2022)

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> You are overstating the case there. I know for a fact that numerous US and UK fighters operating in the Med and the Pacific survived multiple 20mm cannon strikes and flew home. The cannon shell explosion caused more damage but it was not going to automatically destroy a well built plane.
> 
> View attachment 675077
> 
> ...


You seem to have a tenuous grasp on statistics. There are examples of people being shot in the head without suffering permanent damage, but it is not typical. Poon Lim survived 133 days drifting in the Atlantic on a life raft with no supplies but the vast majority of people adrift at sea don't last any near that time. Tsutomu Yamaguchi survived both Hiroshima and Nagasaki but thousands didn't. Outliers do not constitute the general trend.
The statement that American fighter had very little trouble shooting down Axis fighters is pure nonsense. What is your basis for that statement?
I learned in high school when someone says "I know for a fact" to discount what comes next.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ThomasP (Jun 25, 2022)

Hey Wild_Bill_Kelso,

re "Apparently some of the later Seafire marks that had the belt fed guns had ammunition left out to save weight."

What are your sources for this?


re "You are overstating the case there. I know for a fact that numerous US and UK fighters operating in the Med and the Pacific survived multiple 20mm cannon strikes and flew home. The cannon shell explosion caused more damage but it was not going to automatically destroy a well built plane."

First, I never said that the 20mm "going to automatically destroy a well built plane". And you can apply the same rational to aircraft being hit by .50 cal, ie there were many (more) German and Japanese aircraft that made it home with multiple .50 cal hits.

Second, you seem to be of the opinion that what we are telling you about the effectiveness of the 20mm vs the .50 cal is our "opinion". This is not the case - what we are telling you is the opinion of the USN, the USAAF, the RAF, the RN/FAA, the Luftwaffe, the IJN, the IJA, the VVS, the Swiss, . . . . They ALL came to the same conclusion(s). (I think the Italians can be said to have thought the same way also, but I do not know enough about them to say for sure.)

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


----------



## pbehn (Jun 25, 2022)

yulzari said:


> I know which one was thrown over the side into the ocean at the end of the war………


Whether planes were thrown over the side could depend on whether they were Lend Lease or whether the carrier was to be used as a hospital

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## 33k in the air (Jun 25, 2022)

Reluctant Poster said:


> The statement that American fighter had very little trouble shooting down Axis fighters is pure nonsense. What is your basis for that statement?



Depends on what one exactly means by "very little trouble."

If it is meant as saying the .50-cal was entirely sufficient for shooting down Axis fighters, then the statement is clearly true, because American fighters shot down plenty of Axis fighters during the war using only that caliber.

Shooting down four-engine heavy bombers with only .50-cal weaponry is a different proposition, and not one American fighters really had to face.

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


----------



## EwenS (Jun 25, 2022)

Looking at the USN carrier aircraft losses during Operation Torch for those 27 kills. 

F4F-4 - Total available at start of operations - 109. Losses - 5 shot down & 20 operationally (Ranger - 4 shot down by Dewoitine 520 & Curtiss 75-A + 1 by ground fire, and 7 in other operational accidents from 54. Santee lost 10 were lost from her complement of 14 while Suwannee lost 3 from 29. Sangamon lost none from 12).
SBD-3 - Total available at start of operations - 36. Losses - 9
TBF-1 - Total available at start of operations - 27. Losses 10

Suwannee noted the light winds on D-Day causing her skipper, Jocko Clark, to seek areas of water ruffled by the breeze. She was recovering her aircraft with only 22 knots WOD (her own speed was max 18 knots). But that won't be an excuse for her 5 operational losses!

That was in 4 days of operations.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Jun 25, 2022)

Reluctant Poster said:


> You seem to have a tenuous grasp on statistics. There are examples of people being shot in the head without suffering permanent damage, but it is not typical.



I did not post any statistics, I posted an example, in part because I thought this was fairly well known here. 

You seem to have a tenuous grasp on analogies. And you are making some assumptions here.

Gunshot wounds to the head are indeed frequently fatal. Having worked in an emergency room, I'd say usually.

But does your analogy hold? I would say no, it does not. A better analogy might be "cannon strikes to the cockpit" in which case you might be right. But aircraft are large, strongly amde machines, protected by armor and other measures, and they don't always go down so easily.

So how about cannon strikes on fighters? Well, I can say "For a fact" that it is certainly not uncommon for a fighter to survive multiple 20mm cannon strikes. How do I know this? Because I have a particular interest in the operational histories of air to air engagements in various Theaters of WW2. Engagement with cannon armed Axis fighters (and bombers with defensive cannon) in the Pacific and Mediterranean happened almost every day in certain periods, and routinely resulted in _damaged_ Allied fighters. Far more often than not, these actually returned to base in spite of that damage. I don't know what the precise ratio is but it's fairly high, around 3 or 4 to 1. Most of the Allied Aces in these Theaters were in fact involved in incidents, sometimes more than once, in which their aircraft were in fact struck multiple times and badly damaged, but they lived through it. Frequently there was photographic evidence, I only posted one example. Here is an example of the combat record:

July 11, 1942. British fighters from 73, 238, 2 SAAF and 5 SAAF squadrons engaged German fighters from JG 27 and 53, heavy fighters from 4.(H)/12 and bombers from II./LG 1. Losses for the British were 4 shot down and 8 damaged. (one Kittyhawk, two Tomahawk and one Hurricane shot down, one Kittyhawk three Tomahawks and three Hurricanes damaged but returned home, and one more Kittyhawk damaged ("single bullet in oil system") and force landed but later recoverd). German losses were 3 shot down and 1 damaged (two Bf 109F-4 "shot down by P-40s", one '60% damage', and one BF 110F-2 shot down.) The Bf 1094F-4 and Bf 110 are armed with 20mm cannon.

July 13, 1942 British fighters from 6, 601, 274, 450, 92, 1 SAAF, and 2 SAAF sqns engaged German fighters from JG 27 and 53, and Stukas from I and II./StG 3. Losses for the British were 2 shot down and 3 damaged (1 Kittyhawk badly damaged by flak, two Hurricanes shot down by Bf 109, two Hurricane IIc badly damaged by Bf 109). German losses were 2 shot down and 2 Stukas damaged (Bf 109F-4 "shot down by P-40" and pilot KiA, another "shot up in combat" and forced landed)

I'm not saying that this was always the ratio, but it certainly wasn't particularly unusual either.

We could assume of course, that all the damaged aircraft were only hit by light machine guns and all of the destroyed aircraft were hit by cannon, but I think that is highly unlikely. 

My conclusion is that it was not actually so easy to tear an aircraft to pieces even with 20mm cannon. Conversely, with accurate aim, even a pair of light machine guns was sufficient to shoot down even pretty tough fighters, as the pilots of many Ki-43s demonstrated in China and the Pacific.



Reluctant Poster said:


> Poon Lim survived 133 days drifting in the Atlantic on a life raft with no supplies but the vast majority of people adrift at sea don't last any near that time. Tsutomu Yamaguchi survived both Hiroshima and Nagasaki but thousands didn't. Outliers do not constitute the general trend.



I think this is another flawed analogy



Reluctant Poster said:


> The statement that American fighter had very little trouble shooting down Axis fighters is pure nonsense. What is your basis for that statement?



You seem to be implying a bit more than I said, I was referring to cases _where they hit the enemy fighter with their guns_. We were discussing the power of the guns, specifically. I will extend this and note that British and American fighters had little trouble shooting down Axis bombers either.



Reluctant Poster said:


> I learned in high school when someone says "I know for a fact" to discount what comes next.


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Jun 25, 2022)

ThomasP said:


> Hey Wild_Bill_Kelso,
> 
> re "Apparently some of the later Seafire marks that had the belt fed guns had ammunition left out to save weight."
> 
> What are your sources for this?



Here you go:









Armoured Aircraft Carriers


An overview of the production models of the Supermarine Seafire, its evolution and changing specifications.




www.armouredcarriers.com





Here is the direct quote: 

_"The Seafire LIII now had 200 more horsepower at 3000 feet than the Spitfire IX. Its fuselage was lighter by about 200 pounds. It was further lightened in 3 Wing by removing half the gun ammunition and taking away the two outboard .303s altogether. In this condition it could out-turn, out-roll and out-climb the Spitfire IX at all altitudes up to 10,000 feet, a feature which would come into urgent use on several occasions in the forthcoming operations. At last the Fleet Air Arm had an aircraft which could out perform, in a narrow heightband, its contemporary in the RAF."_


ThomasP said:


> re "You are overstating the case there. I know for a fact that numerous US and UK fighters operating in the Med and the Pacific survived multiple 20mm cannon strikes and flew home. The cannon shell explosion caused more damage but it was not going to automatically destroy a well built plane."
> 
> First, I never said that the 20mm "going to automatically destroy a well built plane". And you can apply the same rational to aircraft being hit by .50 cal, ie there were many (more) German and Japanese aircraft that made it home with multiple .50 cal hits.



What is your source that it was 'More'



ThomasP said:


> Second, you seem to be of the opinion that what we are telling you about the effectiveness of the 20mm vs the .50 cal is our "opinion". This is not the case - what we are telling you is the opinion of the USN, the USAAF, the RAF, the RN/FAA, the Luftwaffe, the IJN, the IJA, the VVS, the Swiss, . . . . They ALL came to the same conclusion(s). (I think the Italians can be said to have thought the same way also, but I do not know enough about them to say for sure.)



You are extending 20mm is better than .50 cal, to "Two 20mm are better than six .50 cal." which was the statement I disagreed with in the video. I am not saying that 12.7mm = 20mm, though it would make the argument easier to win if I had.


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Jun 25, 2022)

33k in the air said:


> Depends on what one exactly means by "very little trouble."
> 
> If it is meant as saying the .50-cal was entirely sufficient for shooting down Axis fighters, then the statement is clearly true, because American fighters shot down plenty of Axis fighters during the war using only that caliber.



Indeed. 39 victories for the Seafire vs. 5000+ for the Hellcat says that pretty clearly.




33k in the air said:


> Shooting down four-engine heavy bombers with only .50-cal weaponry is a different proposition, and not one American fighters really had to face.



Well, yeah. And I suspect if the Axis started fielding really tough four engined bombers, the US (and UK) would have up-gunned their fighters, since even 20mm cannon armed fighters had to be up-gunned by the Germans for example.


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Jun 25, 2022)

EwenS said:


> Looking at the USN carrier aircraft losses during Operation Torch for those 27 kills.
> 
> F4F-4 - Total available at start of operations - 109. Losses - 5 shot down & 20 operationally (Ranger - 4 shot down by Dewoitine 520 & Curtiss 75-A + 1 by ground fire, and 7 in other operational accidents from 54. Santee lost 10 were lost from her complement of 14 while Suwannee lost 3 from 29. Sangamon lost none from 12).
> SBD-3 - Total available at start of operations - 36. Losses - 9
> ...



Still a great outing compared to how the Seafires did during the same campaign:

_"Operation Torch also saw the Seafire begin to require its unenviable reputation as a fragile aircraft, *suffering 40% losses during the campaign*. Many of these losses were caused by poor visibility, but there was always an element of truth to this reputation, and the Merlin powered Seafires were not easy to land on carrier flight decks."_

(and I don't think they made 27 claims either)

Not to mention the 70 aircraft lost to accidents at Salerno! 
_
"*The Seafire squadrons lost seventy aircraft in landing accidents*, with most lost either when they hit the barrier after missing all of the arrestor wires, when the undercarriage failed, or when over-braking caused the Seafire to tip onto its nose. These accidents came over the course of a very large number of sorties. On 9 September the Seafires flew 265 sorties, losing 35 aircraft, but deterring around 40 German attacks. By the third day of the campaign there were only 39 of the original 100 Seafires left (many of the other aircraft were under repair). Even so on 11 September the Seafire pilots flew 160 sorties.

Although the overall figure for Seafire accidents was very high, with 42 written off, 32 of them in landing accidents, this figure was distorted by the difficult conditions on HMS Unicorn, which caused 21 of the landing accidents."_






Supermarine Seafire: Development and Service Record


The Supermarine Seafire was the naval version of the Spitfire, but never shared that aircraft's impressive reputation, instead becoming known as a fragile aircraft not well suited to carrier operations



www.historyofwar.org





I'll grant you though that some of the problems seemed to be due to the CVE.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 25, 2022)

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> Conversely, aircraft like the Hellcat, Corsair, P-40, and P-51 which had the typical six .50 cal armament had very little trouble shooting down Axis fighters, particularly in the Pacific where most of the Naval combat was taking place. There is no getting around that six guns shoot more bullets than two guns.


Twelve guns shoot even more, The RAF decided on canon instead of 12 MGs because even 1940s bombers could take a staggering number of hits without going down. The P-40 and P-51 were uprated.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Jun 25, 2022)

pbehn said:


> Twelve guns shoot even more, The RAF decided on canon instead of 12 MGs because even 1940s bombers could take a staggering number of hits without going down. The P-40 and P-51 were uprated.



Right but this is a little bit misleading, because you are talking about 12 *light* MGs, .303s to be precise. Let's look at that.

The .303 shoots an 11.3 gram bullet at 747 m/s. Rate of fire is 20 rps. 

That works out to 3,060 joules per bullet. Multiply by 20 is 61,200. Multiply that by 12, it's 734,000. Still way below the six .50 cals (i.e. *heavy* MGs). 

Six .50 browings = 1,328,351 Joules which is almost twice the energy of 12 x .303s. And it's more than the two 20mm.

We also know that the .303 has a shorter effective range, being lower velocity is less accurate, and has greatly inferior penetration against armor. The .50 gave the extra long range which is important particularly for hitting bombers (you need to outrange or at least equal the defensive guns)

The real reason the .303 was phased out as the main armament was that they had trouble against bombers with cannon or heavy MG as defensive armament.


----------



## ThomasP (Jun 25, 2022)

Hey Wild_Bill_Kelso,

Thanks for the source re the Seafire sometimes having reduced ammo loads for performance purposes.

re 20mm vs .50 cal

Maybe I missed something, but I thought the main contention came from the statement that 1x 20mm was worth 2-3x .50 cal, a statement made by the USN operational research. Since all the major combatants came to the same ~conclusion, I do not see that there is any basis for the argument that the statement is not correct.

I realize that the energy output is greater for 6x .50 cal than for 2x 20mm IF YOU ARE FIRING SOLID PROJECTILES and talking only of kinetic energy, but if you add in the equivalent chemical energy supplied by the explosive content of the 20mm HE projectile, then using your math we get:

six 12.7mm Browning = 78 rounds per second, at 43 grams, a 'weight' of 3,354 grams, or 3+ kg at 890 m/s = KE of 1,328,351.7 Joules

two 20mm Hispano II = 20 rounds per second, at 122 grams, a 'weight' of 2,440 grams, or 2+ kg at 860 m/s = KE of 902,312 Joules + CE of 20 x 8 x 4180 = 902,312 + 668,800 = 1,571,112 Joules

NOTE that I subtracted 8 grams from each 20mm projectile in terms of kinetic energy and added 8 grams of TNT equivalent chemical energy at 4180 Joules/gram TNT.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Jun 25, 2022)

ThomasP said:


> Hey Wild_Bill_Kelso,
> 
> Thanks for the source re the Seafire sometimes having reduced ammo loads for performance purposes.
> 
> ...



I don't think it actually works that way (stacking the chemical energy on top of the joules) though I am not a physicist. 

The .50 cal API ammunition I mentioned also has 2% of incendiary which does have some additional effect.

"Worth _two to three_" .50 cal (if I'm reading your post correctly) is not the same as "is better than the armament of a Hellcat" (i.e. one Hispano 20mm is better than three .50 Brownings) which is the claim made in the video that I objected to. A pair of 20mm Hispano may be equivalent to _two_ .50 cals, I do not believe that two 20mm are more effective than six .50.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 25, 2022)

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> Right but this is a little bit misleading, because you are talking about 12 *light* MGs, .303s to be precise. Let's look at that.
> 
> The .303 shoots an 11.3 gram bullet at 747 m/s. Rate of fire is 20 rps.
> 
> ...


The basic argument is the same, adding up the energy is one way to look at it, but with rifle MG fire it could make dozens of holes in a propeller and leave a still functioning propeller. When the RAF switched to canon the 0.5 wasnt particularly reliable or rapid firing.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Jun 25, 2022)

I wouldn't say cannon is bad. In fact, so long as you have a reasonable ammunition supply, I'd say _four_ Hispano 20mm is definitely better than six .50 Brownings. Maybe better than eight.

And as we know, the US didn't adapt the 20mm mainly because they couldn't figure out how to make them work properly. I still don't quite understand that one.

The .50 cal wasn't a perfect fighter weapon, by any means, but they had made them more efficient (faster shooting, lighter, more reliable) by the later part of the war. And there are some advantages to having the multiple heavy machine guns.

The British were also using .50 cal guns on many aircraft, more or less replacing the .303s, later in the war. As you note, by then they were more reliable. 

Today the 20mm is king, the only rival are mainly 30mm.


----------



## MikeMeech (Jun 25, 2022)

Hi

For information, some comments on the use of 20mm Hispano guns during 1941 from 'The Guns of the Royal Air Force 1939-1945' by G F Wallace:





Mike

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


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Jun 25, 2022)

No doubt, the improvement from .303s to 20mm was a major leap forward in firepower. But enemy aircraft also disintegrated under the concentrated burst of .50 cals too. 

Here is an interview with *Alexander Vraciu

*






He's describing the famous mission where, flying his F6F-3 Hellcat, he destroyed six Japanese dive bombers on a single sortie. At least two of them literally exploded.

Direct quote: "_There was one on the way to there, I got him. *Boy he blew up in all kinds of pieces.*_"

Nor was this a fluke. He found his aircraft, and it's armament, sufficient to destroy multiple enemy aircraft several times: 

On January 29 1944, he claimed 3 x G4M "Betty"
On February 16, 1944, he claimed 3 x A6M and 1 x "Rufe" (A6M2-N)
On April 29, 1944, he claimed 2 x A6M
And on June 20, he got his 6 x D4Y "Judy" dive bombers.

No doubt he was an extraordinarily capable pilot. But I think that is evidence that the firepower was more than adequate.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 25, 2022)

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> We also know that the .303 has a shorter effective range, being lower velocity is less accurate, and has greatly inferior penetration against armor. The .50 gave the extra long range which is important particularly for hitting bombers (you need to outrange or at least equal the defensive guns)


This gets trotted all the time but it is pretty much crap, despite what many veterans think. 
You also have to compare time lines. British .50 cal ammo in 1940/41 had just about the same veleocity as .303 ammo. The high velocity stuff (over 2800fps) doesn't even show up in the US until late 1940 and sure doesn't replace existing US ammo until later. 
The US .50 had a few problems with practical results verses theory. The US .50 performed rather well against test plates in tests. However the long pointy nose, which helped retain veleocity also meant it was more likely to yaw sideways when going through aircraft skin/light structure and hit the armor plate sideways. It worked, kind of, but performance of single rounds (or small groups) was erratic. 

Just about any aircraft gun in WW II was limited in range by the sighting equipment and the need to lead moving aircraft. These two factors were much more important than trajectory. 
The .50 needed a bit less lead than just about anything else but by the time is gets significant you are out past 300yds. If this longer range stuff was really effective the P-38 should have been shooting down all kinds of stuff at 600yds or beyond. No cross over and the guns were never off by more that 22inches from the sight out or 600yds (or beyond) On planes with wing mounted guns if you were close enough to get good hits with a .50 you were within effective range of the defensive guns. 


Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> The .50 cal API ammunition I mentioned also has 2% of incendiary which does have some additional effect.


Yes, no, maybe.
1. the M8 API didn't show up until 1943. It did take over as the standard cartridge as supplies allowed. 
2. The incendiary compound was in the nose of the projectile ahead of the AP core. Which means that incendiary compound rarely made past the armor or heavy structure. The bullet jacket and the IC was get stripped away as the core penetrated. The Russians used a very similar projectile in their 12.7mm guns (and this may be where the US got it).






The US incendiary MI didn't show up until 1941? (sorry all .50cal in the BoB fans) and apparently wasn't very good. The British didn't like it and worked on their own. The US went to the M8 instead of continuing on with the M1. 
The M23 Incendiary was used in operational trials in 1944/45 but had problems (like igniting in the gun barrels or just in front of the guns. ) It was sorted out by Korea but it took several production shut downs and two changes of factory suppling the ammo to finally get acceptable quality. 

Please note that the 2% payload of the .50 cal M8 was just under twice the payload of a .303 incendiary bullet and the late 1942/43 Spitfire with four .303s had two guns loaded with AP ammo and two guns with incendiary. 

One 20mm shell with 10 grams of incendiary held more than 12 rounds of .50 cal M8 API. By part way through the war the British were just screwing a hardened nose cap on the shell body with the incendiary inside. The shell body was going act like an AP or semi AP round, pierce the armor or heavy structure and breakup as it penetrated scattering the IC inside the aircraft into the area the armor plate was supposed to be protecting. 

Things changed with the ammo of various guns as the war progressed and blanket statements often confuse things.

Please that that the US army wanted 20mm guns in P-70 nightfighters and the P-61 nightfighters. Some of the Navy single seat night fighters got 20mm guns. 

Also please note the times of flight and trajectory of the 20mm Hispano gun and .50 cal are nearly identical until you get past 600yds and very, very , very few pilots had any business firing at targets over 600yds away. Other 20mm gun performance can vary considerably.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
6 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 25, 2022)

Shortround6 said:


> This gets trotted all the time but it is pretty much crap, despite what many veterans think.
> You also have to compare time lines. British .50 cal ammo in 1940/41 had just about the same veleocity as .303 ammo. The high velocity stuff (over 2800fps) doesn't even show up in the US until late 1940 and sure doesn't replace existing US ammo until later.
> The US .50 had a few problems with practical results verses theory. The US .50 performed rather well against test plates in tests. However the long pointy nose, which helped retain veleocity also meant it was more likely to yaw sideways when going through aircraft skin/light structure and hit the armor plate sideways. It worked, kind of, but performance of single rounds (or small groups) was erratic.
> 
> ...


There is another side to the discussion that isnt pure science. The British were not happy with rifle calibre guns in the BoB, but their knowledge of losses was limited to what was shot down and landed in South England. They were not aware of how many bombers ditched, made forced landings in France or landed with severe damage and dead or injured crew. Similarly on the Schweinfurt Regensburg raid on 17 August 60 B-17s were shot down but 50 to 95 were badly damaged, many of those who landed in North Africa didnt fly again. In my opinion developing weapons that could take down a B-17 in a single hit or pass may not have been the best policy, if it makes the attacker more vulnerable.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Jun 25, 2022)

Shortround6 said:


> This gets trotted all the time but it is pretty much crap, despite what many veterans think.


I trust the Veterans. I hope you can forgive me.



Shortround6 said:


> You also have to compare time lines. British .50 cal ammo in 1940/41 had just about the same veleocity as .303 ammo. The high velocity stuff (over 2800fps) doesn't even show up in the US until late 1940 and sure doesn't replace existing US ammo until later.



We were talking about Seafire vs. F4U Corsair (see the thread title) so 1940/41 isn't very relevant is it? I'm sure the British had their reasons for sticking with the .303 and then jumping strait to the 20mm Hispano instead of using HMG (how could they resist trying out those excellent Hispano-Suiza designs, like so many other nations around the world!), though as I noted, they did start using .50 Brownings in some of their fighters later in the war. Not that it's big news.



Shortround6 said:


> The US .50 had a few problems with practical results verses theory. The US .50 performed rather well against test plates in tests. However the long pointy nose, which helped retain veleocity also meant it was more likely to yaw sideways when going through aircraft skin/light structure and hit the armor plate sideways. It worked, kind of, but performance of single rounds (or small groups) was erratic.
> 
> Just about any aircraft gun in WW II was limited in range by the sighting equipment and the need to lead moving aircraft. These two factors were much more important than trajectory.
> The .50 needed a bit less lead than just about anything else but by the time is gets significant you are out past 300yds. If this longer range stuff was really effective the P-38 should have been shooting down all kinds of stuff at 600yds or beyond. No cross over and the guns were never off by more that 22inches from the sight out or 600yds (or beyond) On planes with wing mounted guns if you were close enough to get good hits with a .50 you were within effective range of the defensive guns.



When attacking a maneuvering fighter, 300 meters was quite long range. Quite often fighter pilots didn't open fire until they were within 200 meters, some like the Soviets liked to wait until they were within 100 meters. But there are two cases where longer shots could be and were tried, and not infrequently, with success: 

During a long slow approach to a bomber (not the ideal way to attack bombers but this was sometimes how it was done, for a variety of reasons)
During a long chase of a fighter which is a little bit faster and is trying to run away

In these circumstances, US fighter pilots, and British pilots flying US made aircraft did in fact score some extraordinarily long range victories. Even with some unexpected snap-shots on a few occasions. Many of these incidents are well documented. I think the typical Veteran is correct in their fear of approaching a bomber that has a 20mm (or 13mm or 12.7mm) defensive gun if they are only armed with .303s. The .50 cal or 20mm will not only score hits from further away, they will also more quickly disable defensive guns and gunners.



Shortround6 said:


> Yes, no, maybe.
> 
> The US incendiary MI didn't show up until 1941? (sorry all .50cal in the BoB fans) and apparently wasn't very good. The British didn't like it and worked on their own. The US went to the M8 instead of continuing on with the M1.



Again, by the time you are talking about Hellcats, Corsairs, and Seafires, which we were, the M8 round is there. I never said anything about using .50 cal in the BoB.



Shortround6 said:


> The M23 Incendiary was used in operational trials in 1944/45 but had problems (like igniting in the gun barrels or just in front of the guns. ) It was sorted out by Korea but it took several production shut downs and two changes of factory suppling the ammo to finally get acceptable quality.
> 
> Please note that the 2% payload of the .50 cal M8 was just under twice the payload of a .303 incendiary bullet and the late 1942/43 Spitfire with four .303s had two guns loaded with AP ammo and two guns with incendiary.
> 
> One 20mm shell with 10 grams of incendiary held more than 12 rounds of .50 cal M8 API. By part way through the war the British were just screwing a hardened nose cap on the shell body with the incendiary inside. The shell body was going act like an AP or semi AP round, pierce the armor or heavy structure and breakup as it penetrated scattering the IC inside the aircraft into the area the armor plate was supposed to be protecting.


That's a good innovation. But multiple bullets striking tended to peel away layers of fuselage or wing pretty quickly, exposing fuel to the flashes of the rest of the oncoming bullets. That's one of the advantages of shooting 80 rounds per second instead of 20. And 12.7mm penetrated armor well. 

The M8 incendiary on the .50 Browning wasn't actually made for starting fires, it was made for marking targets so the pilot could see if he was getting hits. It turned out to have the happy coincidental / side effect of starting fires on the enemy aircraft as fumes from punctured fuel tanks or hydraulic lines ignited. But it did indeed work pretty well which is why they widely adopted it.



Shortround6 said:


> Things changed with the ammo of various guns as the war progressed and blanket statements often confuse things.
> 
> Please that that the US army wanted 20mm guns in P-70 nightfighters and the P-61 nightfighters. Some of the Navy single seat night fighters got 20mm guns.
> 
> Also please note the times of flight and trajectory of the 20mm Hispano gun and .50 cal are nearly identical until you get past 600yds and very, very , very few pilots had any business firing at targets over 600yds away. Other 20mm gun performance can vary considerably.



I already pointed out that the US wanted to use 20mm, they had an unusual degree of difficulty to get them working (again for reasons I still don't fully understand). I guess some places were better at borrowing some of these excellent Franco / Spanish / Swiss design concepts than others.


----------



## eagledad (Jun 25, 2022)

Gentlemen,

IMHO the following link gives a balanced account of the effectiveness of WW 2 aircraft armament



WORLD WAR 2 FIGHTER GUN EFFECTIVENESS



Eagledad

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


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 25, 2022)

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> I trust the Veterans. I hope you can forgive me.


Nope.
How many veterans that flew P-38s in fall of 1943 and early 144 would tell you that you were supposed to cruise a P-38 at high rpm and low boost?
A lot of those men were not gunnery experts, they were repeating what they had been told.
Or listed to some veterans talk about the .45 automatic pistol and how inaccurate it was.


Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> We were talking about Seafire vs. F4U Corsair (see the thread title) so 1940/41 isn't very relevant is it? I'm sure the British had their reasons for sticking with the .303 and then jumping strait to the 20mm Hispano instead of using HMG (how could they resist trying out those excellent Hispano-Suiza designs, like so many other nations around the world!), though as I noted, they did start using .50 Brownings in some of their fighters later in the war. Not that it's big news.





Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> We also know that the .303 has a shorter effective range, being lower velocity is less accurate, and has greatly inferior penetration against armor. The .50 gave the extra long range which is important particularly for hitting bombers (you need to outrange or at least equal the defensive guns)
> 
> The real reason the .303 was phased out as the main armament was that they had trouble against bombers with cannon or heavy MG as defensive armament.



The British had very good reasons for skipping the .50 cal until late in the war, and some of the those reasons go back to before WW II started and carried through until 1942-43. But you want to ignore those reasons?
One of the reasons was that they didn't have the money/production facilities for both the 20mm cannon and the .50 cal guns. When they started putting .50 cal guns into Spitfires they were getting the guns and ammo lend-lease. No British gun factory, no British workers, a fair amount of the ammo from American factories. Makes the choice a whole lot easier.
British broke ground for the 20mm gun factory in 1938.

Now since the British were phasing out the .303 in the fall of 1940/spring of 1941 and sense most of their experience at that time was due to the BoB I am not sure why you are so quick to bypass the BoB, since that is the basis for your argument against it.

However also note that the British fighters in the BoB did not have the best ammo selection going. Out of the eight guns 3 were often loaded with ball (lead core) ammunition. Sometimes only one gun had the Dixon incendiary and two had the older incendiary tracer ( which burned up much of it's incendiary charge on the flight to the target. and two had AP ammo. The Dixon (De Wilde) ammo in tests showed it was twice as effective at setting fire to aircraft fuel tanks as the older Buckingham ammunition.
British proof tests for the .303 AP called for 70% of the bullets to penetrate 10mm of armor at 100yds. 
If the British had the production capacity for a lot more Dixon/De Wilde ammo and more AP they might have been happier with the .303 guns. There would have been fewer German bombers going home with several hundred hits.


Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> That's a good innovation. But multiple bullets striking tended to peel away layers of fuselage or wing pretty quickly, exposing fuel to the flashes of the rest of the oncoming bullets. That's one of the advantages of shooting 80 rounds per second instead of 20. And 12.7mm penetrated armor well.


20mm doesn't have to peel away layers, not that there were much in way of layers to begin with. A 20mm is either going to punch through the thin parts and out the other side or it is going to go deep inside and do a lot of damage without having have other rounds open things up for it.



Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> This guy's 79th FG P-40 was hit with six 20mm cannon shells and made it back, including 3 in the wings (where there is a fuel tank) and one right behind the armor plate where he was sitting (where there is another fuel tank).


Not all 20mm shells were created equal and and not all fuses were created equal. 
Now as you well know the fuel tanks in the P-40s wing were pretty much under the cockpit and the pilot in the photo is standing on empty space. I don't have any other photos so I don't know if the 3 shells that hit the wing went up the belly where the fuel tanks were or hit outside the wheel wells a number of feet away from the tanks.
Germans used two different 20mm shells in the MG 151/20 gun. The famous mine shell with 20 G of explosive filler but not much metal and the HET round that held about 3.7G of HE. (the tracer took up some space). A 20mm Hispano HE round held 10.2-10.5 grams of HE. 
The Round in the photo looks like it exploded just about where the fuselage skin was, Not against the armor plate behind the pilot. Both the German and the British had a lot of trouble with bad fuses, both number of duds and the with shells exploding too soon and not inside the aircraft. Things got better latter but not perfect. 
As far as kinetic energy goes, the MG 151/20 had about 62% of the energy that the Hispano had. 

Let's try to compare apples to apples.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Jun 26, 2022)

Shortround6 said:


> This gets trotted all the time but it is pretty much crap, despite what many veterans think.
> You also have to compare time lines. British .50 cal ammo in 1940/41 had just about the same veleocity as .303 ammo. The high velocity stuff (over 2800fps) doesn't even show up in the US until late 1940 and sure doesn't replace existing US ammo until later.
> The US .50 had a few problems with practical results verses theory. The US .50 performed rather well against test plates in tests. However the long pointy nose, which helped retain veleocity also meant it was more likely to yaw sideways when going through aircraft skin/light structure and hit the armor plate sideways. It worked, kind of, but performance of single rounds (or small groups) was erratic.


I've posted this before and was shouted down, the .50 AP does penetrate well "IF" it hits a plate set at 90 degree's unobstructed, unfortunately that's not realistic, the bullet has to first penetrate the fuselage or wing structure which are all oblique angles and this is where the long pointed nose of the .50 is a disadvantage, it's easy tipped off it's axis causing it to keyhole resulting in a total loss of penetrating power. Another thing has to be said, it took a very long time for both the 20mm and .50 cal to be reliable, both the guns and ammunition, the .50 cal didn't have reliable API or HE ammunition until after the 20mm and well after the .303, the first specialisted aircraft specific incendiary .50 BMG rounds were upscaled De Wilde projectiles.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Jun 26, 2022)

Shortround6 said:


> The British had very good reasons for skipping the .50 cal until late in the war, and some of the those reasons go back to before WW II started and carried through until 1942-43. But you want to ignore those reasons?


Lets not forget weight, the .50 is a heavy gun and so is it's ammo, until two speed, two speed/two stage engines became the norm weight was a major issue for fighters, that's why the Spit only had 85G of fuel.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Jun 26, 2022)

Shortround6 said:


> Out of the eight guns 3 were often loaded with ball (lead core) ammunition


And the bullet was designed to tumble NOT penetrate, an unknown fact.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Jun 26, 2022)

Shortround6 said:


> Nope.
> How many veterans that flew P-38s in fall of 1943 and early 144 would tell you that you were supposed to cruise a P-38 at high rpm and low boost?
> A lot of those men were not gunnery experts, they were repeating what they had been told.
> Or listed to some veterans talk about the .45 automatic pistol and how inaccurate it was.



All of them knew more about flying, shooting at aircraft and air combat than you do. Discounting the testimony of veterans is foolish if you are trying to understand WW2 air combat. They may not have the whole picture, but they provide soem of the most valuable data. No one source has the whole picture but you'll never come close to understanding what was going on without listening to the pilots who actually did the fighting.

And quite a few .45 automatics _were_ inaccurate, because they were old, damaged and / or poorly maintained. I have seen that first hand at military firing ranges.

Veterans typically have reasons for making the observations they do. They aren't always right, but they are right more often than us armchair observers or researchers. Quite often things that veterans were saying that didn't initially seem to make sense were explained by subsequent data. I personally try not to dismiss their words outright.



Shortround6 said:


> The British had very good reasons for skipping the .50 cal until late in the war, and some of the those reasons go back to before WW II started and carried through until 1942-43. But you want to ignore those reasons?
> One of the reasons was that they didn't have the money/production facilities for both the 20mm cannon and the .50 cal guns. When they started putting .50 cal guns into Spitfires they were getting the guns and ammo lend-lease. No British gun factory, no British workers, a fair amount of the ammo from American factories. Makes the choice a whole lot easier.
> British broke ground for the 20mm gun factory in 1938.



The thing was, you've lost the plot. I was never criticizing the British for not adopting the .50 cal. I was just pointing out that it's misleading to say that typical mid Spitfire / early Seafire armament of two 20mm cannons with four .303 light machine guns was superior to six .50 cal Brownings. That's all I was saying. The British did the best they could with the options available to them, and their weapons were good, though they too had various teething issues that had to be worked out. The main issue with 20mm was fitting enough of them (and enough ammunition) in the wings of some of their existing fighter types, like the Spitfire.

I've also already pointed out that the US wanted to and would have adopted the 20mm but were unable to overcome certain technical problems. But they too would have faced a learning curve getting them functioning well in their fighter aircraft.



Shortround6 said:


> Now since the British were phasing out the .303 in the fall of 1940/spring of 1941 and sense most of their experience at that time was due to the BoB I am not sure why you are so quick to bypass the BoB, since that is the basis for your argument against it.


Are you confusing this discussion with some other thread? I wasn't arguing against the British use of the 20mm, or their initial adoption of the .303. (Almost) everyone was using light .30 caliber machine guns at the dawn of WW2. At least the British put a lot of them on their newer fighters, and quickly adopted cannon.



Shortround6 said:


> Now as you well know the fuel tanks in the P-40s wing were pretty much under the cockpit and the pilot in the photo is standing on empty space. I don't have any other photos so I don't know if the 3 shells that hit the wing went up the belly where the fuel tanks were or hit outside the wheel wells a number of feet away from the tanks.
> Germans used two different 20mm shells in the MG 151/20 gun. The famous mine shell with 20 G of explosive filler but not much metal and the HET round that held about 3.7G of HE. (the tracer took up some space). A 20mm Hispano HE round held 10.2-10.5 grams of HE.
> The Round in the photo looks like it exploded just about where the fuselage skin was, Not against the armor plate behind the pilot. Both the German and the British had a lot of trouble with bad fuses, both number of duds and the with shells exploding too soon and not inside the aircraft. Things got better latter but not perfect.
> As far as kinetic energy goes, the MG 151/20 had about 62% of the energy that the Hispano had.



There are several other photos, and in fact a video, but my google-fu is failing me. He is a pilot of the 79th Fighter Group, I thought his named was George Mobray or something like that.

It's really easy to see in the photo that the round detonated inside the fuselage, you can see the aluminum alloy peeled back above and below. Shrapnel definitely hit the fuselage fuel tank which is right there, and also definitely hit the armor plate which is exactly at that point. But this isn't exactly unusual.

Here is a Spitfire with very similar damage







A hellcat with cannon holes in the port wing, which definitely hit the fuel tank.






Here is the famous image of Clive Caldwell's Tomahawk after he was in a combat with Otto Schulz, and his aircraft recieved multiple bullet and cannon strikes several of which you can see in the image. The fluid on the fuselage is apparently oil though it's likely the rear fuel tank was punctured as well.

You can clearly see three cannon strikes on his starboard wing, one of which flattened his tire, and the cannon strike on the top of his fuselage.








Shortround6 said:


> Let's try to compare apples to apples.



I really think you have lost the plot here mate.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 26, 2022)

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> There are several other photos, and in fact a video, but my google-fu is failing me. He is a pilot of the 79th Fighter Group, I thought his named was George Mobray or something like that.
> 
> It's really easy to see in the photo that the round detonated inside the fuselage, you can see the aluminum alloy peeled back above and below. Shrapnel definitely hit the fuselage fuel tank which is right there, and also definitely hit the armor plate which is exactly at that point. But this isn't exactly unusual.


I have found several other photos. like the 20mm strike in the port aileron. 




But that isn't close to the fuel tank is it?????/
You see what you want to see. Like.........................................


Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> A hellcat with cannon holes in the port wing, which definitely hit the fuel tank.


An _experimental_ Hellcat with a fuel tank in the wing? 
Hellcats had the fuel tanks in the fuselage. the damage on the photo was in the machine gun bay. 


Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> . The fluid on the fuselage is apparently oil though it's likely the rear fuel tank was punctured as well.


And you can tell the fuel tank was punctured how? 
BTW the Tomahawk had the oil tank above the rear fuselage tank. On the Kittyhawk the oil tank was moved forward to just behind the firewall, where the fuselage 50 cal ammo used to be. 


Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> I really think you have lost the plot here mate.



I think you have posted a number of photos with your own interpretations and none of them show the damage a 20mm Hispano caused.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Jun 26, 2022)

Shortround6 said:


> I have found several other photos. like the 20mm strike in the port aileron.
> View attachment 675180
> 
> But that isn't close to the fuel tank is it?????/


Yes, that's the same guy, same plane, but not the only other hit right? Do you have a link? There is (or was) a short video on Youtube as well but I don't recall the search terms.

Good googling.... 👍

IIRC he's holding the plug from the 20mm round there which he ended up keeping and wearing as a pendant to the end of the war, when he died in an accident.



Shortround6 said:


> You see what you want to see. Like.........................................


I'm just calling it like I see it, not the other way around.






You don't see metal peeled back from the inside here? Seriously?



Shortround6 said:


> An _experimental_ Hellcat with a fuel tank in the wing?
> Hellcats had the fuel tanks in the fuselage. the damage on the photo was in the machine gun bay.


Ok fair enough, that was an assumption on my part. Just like you assumed for some bizarre reason I was criticizing the Royal Air Force's choice of armament in the BoB.



Shortround6 said:


> And you can tell the fuel tank was punctured how?
> BTW the Tomahawk had the oil tank above the rear fuselage tank. On the Kittyhawk the oil tank was moved forward to just behind the firewall, where the fuselage 50 cal ammo used to be.
> 
> 
> I think you have posted a number of photos with your own interpretations and none of them show the damage a 20mm Hispano caused.



Are you saying that Hispano did a huge amount more damage than an MG FF, Oerlikon, or MG 151?


----------



## PAT303 (Jun 26, 2022)

As a side note I have to laugh every time I see a photo like this, a couple of months ago we had a long thread about the importance of armour and self sealing tanks on fighters with many members saying the advantages of it were overrated especially on the A6M, that Spit pilot is smiling, if he was flying a Zero his parents would be getting a KIA letter.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Jun 26, 2022)

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> Are you saying that Hispano did a huge amount more damage than an MG FF, Oerlikon, or MG 151?


It was a more powerful gun and from 1943 onwards the belts were predominantly 50/50 HEI/SAPI, they are nasty rounds to an aircraft.


----------



## special ed (Jun 26, 2022)

Veterans are not always accurate. One egregious example comes to mind from an USAAF instructor pilot who was stateside his entire time. We had a heated argument with him saying the US should not have declared war on Germany and I pointing out was Hitler who declared was on the US Dec 10th. Although proof is verifiable, he still believed he was right the last time we met several years ago. He also had some different ideas about various aircraft characteristics from veterans who flew them in theater. I have heard discussions at odds about their planes abilities when the old pilots were together back when there were enough of them to meet during the CAF airshow week.


----------



## MikeMeech (Jun 26, 2022)

Hi

Yes not all 20mm guns were the 'same' and not all 0.50 in/12.7mm were the 'same' in performance. Their effectiveness would depend on a variety of factors which included muzzle velocity, rate of fire, reliability and more important the effectiveness of the rounds used. All these factors could differ in one individual design let alone mulitble designs, early US aircraft 0.50 in were 'worse' than later ones, the different marks of Hispano guns also differed, a brief summary from 'British Aircraft Armament Volume 2' by R Wallace Clarke:




Comments on types of Hispano 20mm ammunition from G F Wallace's book:




Also a brief summary of aircraft guns from 'Aircraft of the Second World War, The Development of the Warplane 1935-45' editor Philip Jarrett:








The whole thing about Seafire v Corsair is odd because they were not 'competitors', indeed the Corsair and Hellcat should have been 'better' naval fighters as they were designed as such and were introduced later than the Seafire. The Seafire was introduced into service in June 1942 and was first used operationally in November 1942, FAA Corsairs did not arrive until June 1943 with their first operation in April 1944, the Hellcat did not arrive until July 1943 with its first operation in December 1943. The FAA could not rely on US production to fulfil its needs so used a mixture of types from Britain and the US, the Seafire, and the Sea Hurricane, provided the higher performing fighters when they were desperately needed, they were far from perfect but waiting for a 'perfect' Corsair or Hellcat to turn up was not an option to fight a war as they would easily become "too little, too late" for 1942/1943, as the Wildcat was for 1940. The FAA of 1944-45 was of course much better equipped with its mixture of aircraft.

Mike

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## don4331 (Jun 26, 2022)

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> I already pointed out that the US wanted to use 20mm, they had an unusual degree of difficulty to get them working (again for reasons I still don't fully understand). I guess some places were better at borrowing some of these excellent Franco / Spanish / Swiss design concepts than others.


In you look at successful versus unsuccessful implementations, the Hispanos issues make sense.
The gun was designed to be mounted to an engine block (motor-cannon). And it works as designed when mounted firmly - the test stand, the nose of a P-38, the belly of P-61 or P-70, and even in the wings of a SB2C.​But when you mount in the wings of a fighter, it doesn't operate reliably because the wings flex and as a result the action does cycle completely.​The RAF solution was to shorten the chamber, which would crush the cartridge in a solid mount, but worked just fine in the wing mounts.​Why the USAAF refused to make this expedient fix is the real question.​​


ThomasP said:


> Hey Wild_Bill_Kelso,
> 
> Thanks for the source re the Seafire sometimes having reduced ammo loads for performance purposes.
> 
> ...



Rerunning your numbers to add the CE for the 0.5, and that 8% of 130g is closer to 10g of HE.

six 12.7mm Browning = 78 rounds per second, at 41 grams, a 'weight' of 3,276 grams at 890 m/s + CE of 78 * 1 * 4,180 = 1,297,40 + 326,040 = 1,623,500 Joules
two 20mm Hispano II = 20 rounds per second, at 122 grams, a 'weight' of 2,400 grams at 860 m/s = KE of 887,520 Joules + CE of 20 x 10 x 4180 = 887,520 + 836,000 = 1,723,520 Joules

So, closer, but 2 Hispanos still trumps 6 - 50s. (And I think the HE should be counted as part of the initial KE as its part of damaging mass right up to ignition.

In Mosquito, Tempest and Typhoon at war, the bean counters noted, that post D-Day on average, the planes were coming back with less than 1/2 ammunition expended. So, they reduced load outs to 60%. (Lies, damn lies and statistics) much to the dismay of the pilots involved.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Jun 26, 2022)

don4331 said:


> In you look at successful versus unsuccessful implementations, the Hispanos issues make sense.
> The gun was designed to be mounted to an engine block (motor-cannon). And it works as designed when mounted firmly - the test stand, the nose of a P-38, the belly of P-61 or P-70, and even in the wings of a SB2C.​But when you mount in the wings of a fighter, it doesn't operate reliably because the wings flex and as a result the action does cycle completely.​The RAF solution was to shorten the chamber, which would crush the cartridge in a solid mount, but worked just fine in the wing mounts.​Why the USAAF refused to make this expedient fix is the real question.​​


That makes sense, and they actually had similar problems with the 12.7mm (and I think, .30 cal) in the wings, for similar reasons, but with the 20mm the Americans had other problems. They had issues with fuselage mounted 20mm all the way into the Vietnam era. I think there was something to do with a firing pin. I'm not sure what else.



don4331 said:


> Rerunning your numbers to add the CE for the 0.5, and that 8% of 130g is closer to 10g of HE.
> 
> six 12.7mm Browning = 78 rounds per second, at 41 grams, a 'weight' of 3,276 grams at 890 m/s + CE of 78 * 1 * 4,180 = 1,297,40 + 326,040 = 1,623,500 Joules
> two 20mm Hispano II = 20 rounds per second, at 122 grams, a 'weight' of 2,400 grams at 860 m/s = KE of 887,520 Joules + CE of 20 x 10 x 4180 = 887,520 + 836,000 = 1,723,520 Joules


Again, I don't think that physics works that way. You don't just add the HE energy to the ballistic energy like that. The HE has some different effects which are both good and bad. It can hit even with near misses, which is good, but it can detonate before penetrating, which isn't always helpful. 

Maybe if the HE charge was added to the propellant, or went off right before impact like a gyrojet, increasing velocity. Anyway, not applicable.

But while we are at it, here is the stats for the M3 browning, which many US - made fighters were carrying by 1943:

six *M3* 12.7mm Browning = *120* rounds per second, at 41 grams = a 'weight' of* 4,920* grams at 890 m/s 1,948,566 Joules (not counting any effects from the incendiary charge)

So that blows away two Hispanos.



don4331 said:


> So, closer, but 2 Hispanos still trumps 6 - 50s. (And I think the HE should be counted as part of the initial KE as its part of damaging mass right up to ignition.



Right. It definitely doesn't trump 6 x M2s, and is dwarfed by six M3s



don4331 said:


> In Mosquito, Tempest and Typhoon at war, the bean counters noted, that post D-Day on average, the planes were coming back with less than 1/2 ammunition expended. So, they reduced load outs to 60%. (Lies, damn lies and statistics) much to the dismay of the pilots involved.



Those were mostly strafing missions right?


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Jun 26, 2022)

MikeMeech said:


> Hi
> 
> Yes not all 20mm guns were the 'same' and not all 0.50 in/12.7mm were the 'same' in performance. Their effectiveness would depend on a variety of factors which included muzzle velocity, rate of fire, reliability and more important the effectiveness of the rounds used. All these factors could differ in one individual design let alone mulitble designs, early US aircraft 0.50 in were 'worse' than later ones, the different marks of Hispano guns also differed, a brief summary from 'British Aircraft Armament Volume 2' by R Wallace Clarke:


Yeah, they aren't the 'same' and I certainly never said they were. But my argument was that the Hispanos didn't have vastly more impact than other 20mm cannon, enough to invalidate the point I was making (fighter aircraft could and did survive cannon strikes). Specifically compared to German cannon:

--------------------------------- Projectile Wt. -------HE %
(German) 20 X 80 RB API--------- 110 ------------ 3%
(German) Mini / HE --------------- 110 ------------ 22%
Hispano II ------------------------- 130 ------------ 8%
Hispano V ------------------------- 130 ------------ 8%

So while the basic German API round had less HE than the Hispano, the _Minengeschoß_ was 22% (18 grams) of HE, which is a much bigger bang than the Hispano, which I believe was about 10 grams. So depending on the ammo, the German guns were actually hitting almost twice as hard, at least in terms of explosive power.

The reason I didn't post a bunch of pics of Axis aircraft with cannon damage is in part because it's not always clear in a photo like that whether it was hit by heavy machine guns or cannon, whereas conversely if an Allied plane has holes larger than rifle caliber it's usually from a 20mm cannon (sometimes larger ones though usually in the case of heavy bombers).



MikeMeech said:


> Also a brief summary of aircraft guns from 'Aircraft of the Second World War, The Development of the Warplane 1935-45' editor Philip Jarrett:
> 
> 
> The whole thing about Seafire v Corsair is odd because they were not 'competitors', indeed the Corsair and Hellcat should have been 'better' naval fighters as they were designed as such and were introduced later than the Seafire. The Seafire was introduced into service in June 1942 and was first used operationally in November 1942, FAA Corsairs did not arrive until June 1943 with their first operation in April 1944, the Hellcat did not arrive until July 1943 with its first operation in December 1943. The FAA could not rely on US production to fulfil its needs so used a mixture of types from Britain and the US, the Seafire, and the Sea Hurricane, provided the higher performing fighters when they were desperately needed, they were far from perfect but waiting for a 'perfect' Corsair or Hellcat to turn up was not an option to fight a war as they would easily become "too little, too late" for 1942/1943, as the Wildcat was for 1940. The FAA of 1944-45 was of course much better equipped with its mixture of aircraft.



Well, they were competitors in the sense that US Corsairs (in action in early 1943) and US Hellcats (in action mid 1943) were engaging with the same enemy. We were not, so far as I know, constrained to discuss what aircraft flew (or could have flown) for the Royal Navy and when. It was just a strait comparison between Seafire and Corsair. And as you note, Corsair was a purpose built Naval fighter which is why it was better.

Again, I never write my comments as a critique of the FAA or RN procurement policies, though there is certainly a discussion to be had there. It's probably for another thread.




MikeMeech said:


> Mike



Bill


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 26, 2022)

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> You don't see metal peeled back from the inside here? Seriously?


I see a fair amount of sheet metal peeled back, I also see a fair amount of fragment holes below the large hole that look like the fragments came from the outside. Also a fair number of scrape marks radiating out from the hole in the lower arc. Unless we have two shells expanding very close to each other how to we reconcile that? 
Shell exploded either on the skin surface or partially penetrated? A German shell was about 80mm in length so you can have fragments (or force) applied to different sides of the same hole on thin skins. But if the shell exploded on the aircraft skin it did not hit the armor plate as an intact projectile.
Please look at the picture of the Spitfire in post #145. I would guess that the shell hit on angle judging from the fragment holes above and the lack of fragment holes below. the Sheet metal is blown in strongly suggesting a surface explosion. 

On the P-40 in question there are photos (and maybe others?) that show the hit on right hand fuselage in back of the cockpit, there was another hit on the right hand horizontal stabilizer very close to the fuselage. Camera is just above the stabilizer tip so it is hard to see but looks like the shell went in just over the elevator? 

Then there is the photo of the left side aileron where it looks like the shell went in through the back of aileron (deflecting the trim tab out of the way?) and exploded either in the forward edge of the aileron or the wing just in front of the hinge point )or both (80 mm long shell) 





Note that the aileron is metal covered on the leading edge and fabric covered over most of it's surface. 
IF (saying if) that is the entry hole in aileron visible through his fingers holding the shell fragment/plug) it looks like the shell was traveling a bit to left to where the greatest damage to the rear of the wing is. The raised up panel is blast damage (torn rivets or screws) 
There are 3 photos on the 87th fighter group website, I have no idea where the extra hits went. 


Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> Are you saying that Hispano did a huge amount more damage than an MG FF, Oerlikon, or MG 151?


20 mm projectiles ranged from 79 grams (Japanese army) to 130 grams for the Hispano. 
Muzzle energy ranged from 19,700 joules for the MG/FF to 46,900 joules for the Hispano (long barrel) 
HE content ranged from under 4 grams to 20 grams (German mine shell) 
Define "huge amount"? 
Obviously there was a substantial difference between the extremes.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 26, 2022)

don4331 said:


> The RAF solution was to shorten the chamber, which would crush the cartridge in a solid mount, but worked just fine in the wing mounts.Why the USAAF refused to make this expedient fix is the real question.


I think the Hispano was designed to use greased ammunition, I could be wrong on this and the grease was used as a "work around". The 20mm Oerlikon definitely used greased ammo.
The Greased ammo was not looked upon with favor, greased ammo got a lot less "greasy" at cold temperatures/high altitudes shall we say.

The grease performed two functions. It offered resistance as the cartridge went in taking up sloppy tolerances. One of the problems was light firing pin strike causing miss fires (and trying to re-cock the gun). It also did lubricate the case on the way back out (extraction). 
The short chamber solved the firing pin strike problem.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 26, 2022)

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> But while we are at it, here is the stats for the M3 browning, which many US - made fighters were carrying by 1943:
> 
> six *M3* 12.7mm Browning = *120* rounds per second


There were NO M3s in 1943-44.
None.
Nada
Zilch.
There were darn few in 1945.
The Gun that would become the M3 was the Frigidaire T25E3 and testing started at Aberdeen July 19th 1944. It was standardized in April of 1945. A batch of guns (up to 10,000?) were built using the T25E3 designation for large scale trials.


Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> They had issues with fuselage mounted 20mm all the way into the Vietnam era. I think there was something to do with a firing pin. I'm not sure what else.


It seems like the US was only using some 20mm Hispanos in Vietnam. In Skyraiders and few old navy aircraft. 
The US had number of 20mm guns using several different cartridge cases. Most being electrically primed.




From Anthony Williams website. 
The 20x102 was the Air force ammo. The 120x110USN was US navy, these two were both electrically primed. 
The 20x110 came both percussion primed for the M3 Hispano and electrically primed for the M-24 gun. 

I am not saying there weren't problems with electrically primed guns in jungle conditions. But they may have been different than the percussion fired guns.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ThomasP (Jun 27, 2022)

Hey Wild_Bill_Kelso,

A couple of points:

In WWII the highest MV for a new .50 cal M2, AN/M2 Aircraft Gun (36" barrel) was only 2835 ft/sec.
A new M2 HB (45" barrel) had a maximum MV of 2935 ft/sec.

As Shortround6 mentions above the .50 cal M3 saw almost no service in WWII. The M3 was not adopted until April 1945, and I think (I may be wrong) that none of the 2300 produced before the war ended were fired in anger. As far as I know the first M3s deployed were in the F8F Bearcats that were on the way to the PTO when the war ended. So using the M3 variant for this discussion is kind of pointless.

The British HE/I Mk IZ could penetrated 8mm of RHA I.T.70 (440-470 BHN) before detonating, ensuring that under normal circumstances the round would penetrate some distance into the aircraft before exploding. Extreme shallow striking angles (grazing) would often cause the round to detonate on or near the aircraft skin. .50 cal AP M2 would usually fail to penetrate at similar impact angles.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ThomasP (Jun 27, 2022)

Hey don4331,

re the 8 grams of explosive

I was using the explosive content for the US 20mm HE-I Mk I round. The Ordnance Department lists it as having 120 grains (7.776 grams) Pentolite 50/50 and 50 grains (3.25 grams) Incendiary compound. Pentolite 50/50 has a TNT equivalence value of 1.05 so 1.05 x 7.776 = 8.165 or rounding off = 8 grams.

I left out the Incendiary compound because I did not think it would contribute a KE equivalent.


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Jun 27, 2022)

Shortround6 said:


> I see a fair amount of sheet metal peeled back, I also see a fair amount of fragment holes below the large hole that look like the fragments came from the outside. Also a fair number of scrape marks radiating out from the hole in the lower arc. Unless we have two shells expanding very close to each other how to we reconcile that?
> 
> Shell exploded either on the skin surface or partially penetrated? A German shell was about 80mm in length so you can have fragments (or force) applied to different sides of the same hole on thin skins. But if the shell exploded on the aircraft skin it did not hit the armor plate as an intact projectile.








I don't need to reconcile anything. I don't think you need to tie your brain in knots, because I really don't think it's that complicated. You just don't want to accept what you are looking at for reasons I won't speculate on. The heavy gauge aluminum alloy is bent like the ribs on a hapless astronaut in one of the Alien movies after the chest burster comes out. It's painfully obvious that it detonated inside, a few cm from the armor plate. This in turn means that fragments undoubtedly struck both the armor plate and the fuselage fuel tank, which is right there. Whether it detonated actually on the armor plate I can't say, we can't know unless they stuck the camera inside the whole or took the aircraft apart. But it's clear that it detonated very close to it, within 2-3 cm IMO.

Was there another shell? Was there another shooter in Dealey Plaza in 1963? There certainly _could_ have been, these are machine cannons after all which shoot multiple shells. But we certainly don't need one to explain what we are looking at. It's obvious to anyone with eyes.

And this nit-pick within a nit pick, is pointless. I was demonstrating that cannon shell strikes (such as the Hispano) did not automatically destroy aircraft they hit. The British Hispano 20mm had more ballistic energy, but the Germans did have much larger explosive charges available for their 20mm he / Minie than what the Hispano 20mm carried. No way to be sure which type we were looking at here and in the other shots I posted (though the German fighters were carrying the minie shells by 1944 when this aircraft was hit) , but I don't think it's that hard to interpret. A 20mm cannon could leave anywhere from just a few shell fragment holes, to an orange to a melon sized hole in an enemy aircraft, which was potentially very devastating, especially if you land a close group of say 5-10 hits. But WW2 aircraft are pretty big and can often withstand multiple hits from these. A closely grouped burst of 20mm shells could tear off a wing, break a fuselage in half, pulverize a pilot, shatter an engine etc., but a close group of 12.7mm bullets could do that too.



Neither are "automatic" kill weapons by any means.



Shortround6 said:


> Please look at the picture of the Spitfire in post #145. I would guess that the shell hit on angle judging from the fragment holes above and the lack of fragment holes below. the Sheet metal is blown in strongly suggesting a surface explosion.



Maybe? I see people _claiming _that a 20mm Hispano will always penetrate deeper before exploding, I don't think that is always true however. In fact it seems from images I see that they often detonate on the surface. But what difference does it make? It was obviously close enough for fragments to penetrate into the interior.


Shortround6 said:


> On the P-40 in question there are photos (and maybe others?) that show the hit on right hand fuselage in back of the cockpit, there was another hit on the right hand horizontal stabilizer very close to the fuselage. Camera is just above the stabilizer tip so it is hard to see but looks like the shell went in just over the elevator?
> 
> Then there is the photo of the left side aileron where it looks like the shell went in through the back of aileron (deflecting the trim tab out of the way?) and exploded either in the forward edge of the aileron or the wing just in front of the hinge point )or both (80 mm long shell)
> 
> ...



It's the 79th fighter *group*, 87th fighter squadron









Home - 79th Fighter Group


"The Falcons"




79thfightergroup.com





Those photos are actually stills from a short film of about 5 minutes, which shows the whole aircraft. It used to be on youtube but maybe it was taken down. IIRC there were 4-5 cannon strikes on the aircraft, which was subsequently repaired and put back into action. Maybe sent to the Soviets or the Free French later as they often did with 'battle weary' birds.



Shortround6 said:


> 20 mm projectiles ranged from 79 grams (Japanese army) to 130 grams for the Hispano.
> Muzzle energy ranged from 19,700 joules for the MG/FF to 46,900 joules for the Hispano (long barrel)
> HE content ranged from under 4 grams to 20 grams (German mine shell)
> Define "huge amount"?
> Obviously there was a substantial difference between the extremes.



Well, it's definitely not an order of magnitude is it? Hispano has more ballistic energy but the German HE shells had about twice as much explosive power. I'd say it's fairly close. But if you insist, I'll go find some German aircraft which landed safely with obvious cannon strikes. I know that many German and Italian fighters and light bombers returned damaged but _not_ destroyed from engagements with Spitfire Mk V and later, from Hurricane IIC and so on. By definition if they were damaged but not destroyed by a Hurricane IIC that was 20 mm Hispano strikes. Do you need me to go find some examples of this?


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Jun 27, 2022)

Shortround6 said:


> There were NO M3s in 1943-44.
> None.
> Nada
> Zilch.
> ...



Ok fair enough, lets stick with the 12.7mm M2 for our comparison. Six of them are still obviously _at least_ as good as two 20mm Hispano plus four .303s.



Shortround6 said:


> It seems like the US was only using some 20mm Hispanos in Vietnam. In Skyraiders and few old navy aircraft.
> The US had number of 20mm guns using several different cartridge cases. Most being electrically primed.
> View attachment 675212
> 
> ...



They were having trobule with 20mm on several US Airforce and Navy aircraft, right through the Vietnam era. The GE multi-barrel "gattling" type guns seemed to fix this problem, and I guess they used electronic firing. But those things are out of ammunition really quick.

I saw a firepower demonstration once of a M113 track vehicle with one of those. It was insanely impressive. Like many of the young soldiers present, I was in awe, and made comments to that effect. An old E8 standing next to me with a combat patch on his right shoulder wryly pointed out that in Vietnam, the VC would duck into fox holes during the (extremely impressive) "BRAAAAAAAP" when that thing was shooting, and then come out and set up their B10 rockets, knowing it was out of ammunition. Even an M113 only carried enough shells for about a minute or two of firing. Aircraft obviously carried a lot less.

I think a 30 mm Aden or equivalent is probably better for aircraft.


----------



## GregP (Jun 27, 2022)

Spitlead said:


> To be fair, the Corsair was the better fighter compared to the Hellcat. That's why it was the longest produced U.S. piston engine fighter - 11 years. Granted, the Corsair had some early landing issues on carriers which arguably limited deployment to Marine squadrons during the war (Navy pilots generally did not use land bases). Some of the longevity of production was likely due to the Navy's issue with the new jets, taking off/landing on a carrier. However, looking at a mid-1943 Corsair compared to a 1943 F6F-5, the Corsair was faster and had a superior roll rate than the Hellcat. Hellcat was better at diving. I'm not at all implying the Hellcat was a bad fighter, just that the Corsair was better. Both used the same R-2800 engine, but Vought's design of a slimmer fuselage, closer cowled engine, cooling ducts in the wing and flush riveting throughout made the difference. Just my humble opinion.



No too sure you are correct here. The Hellcat had the better kill-to-loss ratio for air-to-air combat, and produced a lot more aces by virtue of viceless handling and ruggedness. Had the later Corsair's engine and propeller combination been used by a new Hellcat version, it would have been a better fighter, particularly if they had let Grumman eliminate the outer wing panel dihedral as they requested, to increase the roll rate. The Hellcat doesn't takes a back seat to the Corsair in much, perhaps top speed, roll rate, and maybe a slight climb delta. I seriously doubt the real-world climb delta as the two used the same engine and prop for most of the war and weighed almost the same empty, with the Corsair being heavier at gross. Everything else including range and combat radius is better for the Hellcat or a wash at worst. The Hellcat certainly turns better, handles better, and will not wind up in the sea due to carb icing as a Corsair easily can since the Hellcat does not use ram air, specifically to preclude carb ice at sea in cold conditions.

There's not much to complain about if you are flying a Hellcat against another piston fighter. Ask the man who flew one.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Jun 27, 2022)

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> But if you insist, I'll go find some German aircraft which landed safely with obvious cannon strikes

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


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Jun 27, 2022)

Clayton Magnet said:


> View attachment 675325



WOW! Ok that is a *BIG* cannon strike no doubts about that. Was it from a 20mm?


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Jun 27, 2022)

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> I think a 30 mm Aden or equivalent is probably better for aircraft.


The Russian GSh-30-1 strikes a pretty impressive balance of rate of fire, muzzle energy and total installed weight. Only real downside is that they wear out rapidly, but that never really seemed to bother the Russians.
Seems pretty hard to beat for a fighter cannon.

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


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Jun 27, 2022)

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> WOW! Ok that is a *BIG* cannon strike no doubts about that. Was it from a 20mm?


No idea, but I would guess it was from some sort of anti-aircraft gun. 
It looks about like the damage caused from a MK 108 mine shell


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Jun 27, 2022)

Clayton Magnet said:


> No idea, but I would guess it was from some sort of anti-aircraft gun.
> It looks about like the damage caused from a MK 108 mine shell



yah that would be my guess too. That is a lucky pilot.


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Jun 27, 2022)

if you know of any images of Axis aircraft likely struck by 20mm Hispano please post 'em


----------



## Barrett (Jun 27, 2022)

FAA Hellcats tangled with 109s and 190s during Norway ops in early 44. Article expanded from my 1979 (!) F6F book.

When Hellcats Took the Fight to the Luftwaffe 

For the intriguing matchup of 190s v Corsairs, see Eric Brown's excellent "Duels in the Sky."

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Winner Winner:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 27, 2022)

Barrett said:


> FAA Hellcats tangled with 109s and 190s during Norway ops in early 44. Article expanded from my 1979 (!) F6F book.
> 
> When Hellcats Took the Fight to the Luftwaffe
> 
> For the intriguing matchup of 190s v Corsairs, see Eric Brown's excellent "Duels in the Sky."



What a fine article! Thanks for posting it.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GreenKnight121 (Jun 28, 2022)

A point to note is that the USN, starting with the F4U-1C Corsair and continuing with the F4U-4B/E/N & F4U-5, the F8F-2 and the FJ-2 Fury - the 6 x .50 MG of the earlier versions of these aircraft were replaced by *4* x 20mm cannon - not 2 x 20mm & 2 x .50 mg.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 28, 2022)

GreenKnight121 said:


> A point to note is that the USN, starting with the F4U-1C Corsair and continuing with the F4U-4B/E/N & F4U-5, the F8F-2 and the FJ-2 Fury - the 6 x .50 MG of the earlier versions of these aircraft were replaced by *4* x 20mm cannon - not 2 x 20mm & 2 x .50 mg.


I think 4 x 2mm cannon were initially fitted to P-51s.


----------



## GreenKnight121 (Jun 28, 2022)

The initial production of the Mustang was for the RAF - the Mustang 1, with 2 x .50 mg under the nose and 2 x .50 mg & 4 x .30 mg in the wings (the RAF had specified 2 x .50 mg & 4 x .30 mg, but NAA added bonus guns).

*150 Mustang 1As (93 of which ended up with the USAAF as the P-51 {no variant letter} did have 4 x 20mm cannons... but these were British ordered aircraft - the USAAF never ordered any with the cannons.*

Beginning in mid-1943, the RAAF fitted a Mustang I with a modified wing and two Vickers 40-millimeter "S" guns, one under each wing. The two 12.7-millimeter guns in the nose were retained in this configuration, but the wing armament was reduced to a single 7.62-millimeter gun in each wing. This particular weapons fit was not judged worth pursuing further, and no other Mustang ever featured it.

The P-51B/Cs had just 4 x .50 mg in the wings, but all other Mustangs had an armament of 6 x .50 mg (first 2 in the nose & 4 in the wings for the A-36/P-51A, then 6 in the wings for the P-51D/K) until the P-51H, which reverted to the 4 x .50 mg in the wings fit.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Jun 28, 2022)

Barrett said:


> FAA Hellcats tangled with 109s and 190s during Norway ops in early 44. Article expanded from my 1979 (!) F6F book.
> 
> When Hellcats Took the Fight to the Luftwaffe
> 
> For the intriguing matchup of 190s v Corsairs, see Eric Brown's excellent "Duels in the Sky."



Excellent. And boy, this is pretty damning:

"_Ian Cameron, a British naval aviator, lamented, "Between the first day of war and the last, the Fleet Air Arm received not one single British aircraft which wasn't either inherently unsuited for carrier work or was obsolete before it came into service._"

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jun 28, 2022)

I can think of no circumstances where the Seafire would be preferred over the Corsair. The Corsair was introduced into USN service in December 1942, only a few months after the Seafire first enters RN fleet service. If through earlier lend lease or licensed production we could swap out every Seafire with a Corsair the FAA pilots and mechanics would be ecstatic. This would mean flying the Fulmar, Sea Hurricane and Martlet into 1943, so there is that.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Jun 28, 2022)

To be fair, it did take a while to work out best practices for the Corsair and fix a few of the teething issues, especially for Carrier use.

I think some would have been very helpful on Malta too, to be frank.


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 28, 2022)

Admiral Beez said:


> I can think of no circumstances where the Seafire would be preferred over the Corsair.


A Group Build.

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


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 28, 2022)

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> To be fair, it did take a while to work out best practices for the Corsair and fix a few of the teething issues, especially for Carrier use.
> 
> I think some would have been very helpful on Malta too, to be frank.


"a while" - Not really. Read "Jolly Rogers" written by Tom Blackburn, CO of VF-17, the second unit that received the Corsair. Blackburn details the timeline of when VF-17 received the first Corsairs, carrier trial and qualifications and modifications made to the aircraft (which were minimal). VF-17 was established January, 1943 and saw their first combat in October 1943, pretty remarkable for training up a new squadron with green pilots, getting new aircraft and deploying to the South Pacific. From what I got out of his book, it was a matter of logistics that kept the F4U from carrier operations rather than any operational issues that any other fighter of the period encountered when they first entered service.

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


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jun 28, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> A Group Build.


If you mean building them alongside the Spitfire, thus achieving economies of scale, then yes. Which brings us to one potential advantage the Seafire "could" have had over the Corsair, that of a much earlier introduction to service. There was nothing in the Seafire that entered service in 1942 that was not reasonably feasible in 1939, albeit with a less powerful and differently blown Merlin. Skip the Fulmar, threaten the future Sir Charles Fairey with nationalization of his firm if he persists with his Fulmar folly and force him and Vickers-Supermarine to get making Seafires. Will this be a detriment to the available Spitfires for the Battle of Britain? Perhaps, but the Seafires can join in the fight as well.

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


----------



## EwenS (Jun 28, 2022)

Admiral Beez said:


> I can think of no circumstances where the Seafire would be preferred over the Corsair. The Corsair was introduced into USN service in December 1942, only a few months after the Seafire first enters RN fleet service. If through earlier lend lease or licensed production we could swap out every Seafire with a Corsair the FAA pilots and mechanics would be ecstatic. This would mean flying the Fulmar, Sea Hurricane and Martlet into 1943, so there is that.


Except Corsairs folded won’t fit in the 14ft high upper hangar in Indomitable nor both 14ft high hangars in the Implacables. Each wingtip had to be trimmed by 8” to allow Illustrious, Victorious and Formidable to carry them in their 16ft high hangars. It is why the RN standardised on 17ft 6in hangars on the Colossus and Audacious class carriers to match the USN Standard.

That is why Indomitable got Hellcats from mid-1944. And due to demand from the USN for Hellcats as the primary fighter for the Pacific carriers from late 1943, it quickly became clear to the FAA that the supply of Hellcats would be insufficient in 1944 to allow squadrons on Indefatigable and Implacable to be equipped with, and maintained on, Hellcats.

Don’t be too sure about FAA preferences. When the first FAA pilots arrived at Quonset Point in mid-1943 is was to daily news of US pilots killing themselves in “the bent-winged bastard from Connecticut”. On his first night there Norman Hanson, Senior Pilot in 1833 squadron, and his boss took a wander over to the squadron hangar to see their new mounts. After viewing them he went back to his quarters and typed his last will and testament!

The first FAA squadron received its Corsairs at Quonset Point on 1 June 1943 with another 7 following up to 1 Oct 1943. The first squadrons to see action were 1834 & 1836 on Victorious during the Operation Tungsten raid on Tirpitz on 3 April 1944, just over 7 & 8 months respectively after formation. 2 more squadrons on Illustrious in the Indian Ocean saw action later that month alongside aircraft from the USS Saratoga. Most of the aircrew were fresh from training, only squadron COs, Senior Pilots and flight commanders generally having some prior experience.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## EwenS (Jun 28, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> From what I got out of his book, it was a matter of logistics that kept the F4U from carrier operations rather than any operational issues that any other fighter of the period encountered when they first entered service.


Yes. A deliberate choice in late 1943 to simplify the supply chain for the Fast Carrier Groups then building up. Things didn’t change until Dec 1944 when the Kamikaze threat became so great as to force an increase in fighter numbers. Ultimately 10 USMC squadrons flew from the Essex class fast carriers in the first 6 months of 1945 until sufficient USN aircraft and pilot numbers could be built up to replace them. And a lot of the replacement air groups VF/VBF squadrons were flying Corsairs.

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


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jun 28, 2022)

EwenS said:


> Except Corsairs folded won’t fit in the 14ft high upper hangar in Indomitable....


That would present an issue. I see in these photos Corsairs aboard Indomitable, but perhaps they were not stowed below. Or the photo is mislabeled. 






Frank Mitchell pictures - Ch 4 HMS Indomitable


Landings on HMS Indomitable, HMS Indomitable alongside, Avengers, Corsairs



www.frankmitchell-photographer-rn.co.uk


----------



## EwenS (Jun 28, 2022)

Admiral Beez said:


> That would present an issue. I see in these photos Corsairs aboard Indomitable, but perhaps they were not stowed below. Or the photo is mislabeled.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The photo was taken on Indomitable. The give away is the Mark V HACS atop the island and the SM-1 radar set at the front of the island. She was the only Illustrious class with those features. The SM-1 was fitted during her repair and refit at Norfolk NY that completed in May 1944. The funnel shows evidence of a camouflage scheme. So that dates it to before she arrived in the Indian Ocean in early July 1944. Her Hellcat squadrons were already based in Ceylon when she arrived as were her Barracuda squadrons.

There are photos of her with Avengers around this time which also were not part of her air group until Nov 1944.

So for me the photo is of Indomitable ferrying aircraft either from the US to the U.K. or from the U.K. to Ceylon between May and July 1944.

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


----------



## nuuumannn (Jul 1, 2022)

Admiral Beez said:


> Skip the Fulmar, threaten the future Sir Charles Fairey with nationalization of his firm if he persists with his Fulmar folly and force him and Vickers-Supermarine to get making Seafires. Will this be a detriment to the available Spitfires for the Battle of Britain? Perhaps, but the Seafires can join in the fight as well.



Now we're talkin'... The decision of the Air Ministry not to issue the FAA with a single-seat fighter specification in the early to mid 1930s time period had enormous repercussions. That doesn't mean that US naval aircraft shouldn't be purchased if the Brits did get Seafires earlier. The more the merrier, but the pressure to get hold of decent carrier based fighters would not have been so high as they were in the first few years of the war.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Jul 3, 2022)

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> Excellent. And boy, this is pretty damning:
> 
> "_Ian Cameron, a British naval aviator, lamented, "Between the first day of war and the last, the Fleet Air Arm received not one single British aircraft which wasn't either inherently unsuited for carrier work or was obsolete before it came into service._"


You have to remember that Seafire development was canceled to get as many Spitfires into service as possible before the BoB, Joe Smith had drawings and designs before the war started but like everything Spitfire from the first day to the last production demands came before improvements.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Jul 3, 2022)

Well there does also seem to be some kind of issue specifically with the FAA and their requirements. I seem to remember something about a reshuffling of decision making bodies shortly before the war. Was it that fleet admirals were deciding matters about aircraft? The two seat fighters, the low altitude engine power settings, persistence of biplanes... there seems to be some thing amiss at the planning stage. British manufacturers and navy personnel did a lot with what they got, (putting radar on Swordfish for example) but it seemed to be a lot of jamming square pegs into round holes.

Spitfire was never going to be an ideal naval fighter, IMO, simply because it was designed as a lightweight, fast (very streamlined), short range fighter.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 3, 2022)

Admiral Beez said:


> There was nothing in the Seafire that entered service in 1942 that was not reasonably feasible in 1939, albeit with a less powerful and differently blown Merlin.


The 1939 time line is rather iffy. 
Let's assume that you have enough constant speed props as a given or the the idea won't work to begin with.
you have an 880hp engine for take off with 87 octane fuel. In Jan of 1939 you know that 100 octane fuel is coming, you don't know when or exactly how much improvement you are going to get. As the months go by you are able to start planning the arrival of 100 octane and which airplanes are going to get it. You also start to get an _idea _of what the performance gains are going to be. 
Yes the Merlin 45 used in the First Seafires used a different blower but it had 1185hp for take off, without using emergency power. 
In 1939 (?) there was proposed version of the Merlin to use 100 octane that was rated at 1000hp for take-off using 8 1/4lbs boost. As the results came in from testing the existing Merlin IIIs with 100 octane fuel they found they could simply upgrade/up rate existing engines and a new version wasn't needed. But when did they know that? 
There was an early proposed Merlin of the R.M.1 M type with a lower ratio on the supercharger to use 87 octane fuel that would give 1000hp for take-off using 6lns boost, but it would only give 1085hp at 9750ft and then decrease after that.
The engine (VIII) in the Fulmar I used an even lower supercharger gear ratio and was good for 1080hp for take-off at 5lbs boost on 87 octane fuel and about 1275hp at sea level using 9lbs of boost. This was a R.M 3 engine. 
The R.M. 3S engine was the one used in the Spitfire MK II and was rated at 1175hp for take-off using 100 octane and 12lbs boost. 

You may not need the Merlin 45 but the timing for the Seafire gets a bit tricky in 1939-40. 


Admiral Beez said:


> Skip the Fulmar, threaten the future Sir Charles Fairey with nationalization of his firm if he persists with his Fulmar folly


All these threats against British manufactures wouldn't have changed much. 
Just tell them what you want them to make and pay them for it. Just don't change your mind unless you are willing to pay for the raw materials, subcontracted parts and labor for the partially built stuff they have on hand when the air ministry changes their minds. 
Remember the Hurricane story. Hawker went out on a limb and ordered raw materials and long lead items _before_ the Air Ministry actually placed the order. If the Air Ministry had changed their minds and only ordered a hundred of so Hurricanes while they waited for BP Defiants (or whatever the flavor of the day for turret fighters was) Hawker might have faced bankruptcy. 
Fairey and company would pretty much make anything the Air Ministry told them to make if they thought they could make money doing it. 
Fairey got an order for 127 Fulmars in mid 1938. It took until Jan 1940 for the first one to fly. 
When do you cancel all the parts and tooling already in process of making the Fulmars and how long is it going to take to set up the Seafire production line. 
Somebody can "say" they had the wing fold all worked out and ready to go but let's face facts. Supermarine (Vickers) was making Spitfires in very small batches or constantly changing things even as they were building the first hundreds. Something that drove Castle Bromwich nuts. Granted their management wasn't the best but the constant flow of change drawings for minor items would have been a problem for any 3rd production line. It is either that or the Seafire as building in late 1939-40 becomes increasing deforced from the Spitfire production standard. A lot less interchangeability with the land based aircraft. How important this is????? 

Look at Eastern Aircraft and the Wildcat. There were literally hundreds of drawings to change from the 4 gun to the six gun wing. 

Do you want Fairey to make "Seafires" or do you want them to make a single seat carrier plane that just sort of looks like a Spitfire from medium distance? 

And we haven't even gotten into the A wing with eight machine guns or the B wing, which one do you figure out how to fold up in 1939? You know the 20mm guns are coming but they don't show up in any real numbers all the way through 1940. 

And what do you do for scout aircraft, the often ignored role the Fulmar played in chase of the Bismarck. 

In the Med in 1940 an early Seafire will outperform anything the Italians have got. It better as the early Seafire is going to have to land twice as often to refuel and rearm. 

There were reasons the ammo capacity and fuel capacity was spelled out the way it was. It may have been wrong (lord knows the carrier turret fighter was a bad idea) but a 1939 
Seafire with eight .303 guns with 300rpg and 85 gallons of fuel was not be a total replacement for the needed fighters.

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


----------



## EwenS (Jul 3, 2022)

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> Well there does also seem to be some kind of issue specifically with the FAA and their requirements. I seem to remember something about a reshuffling of decision making bodies shortly before the war. Was it that fleet admirals were deciding matters about aircraft? The two seat fighters, the low engine power settings, persistence of biplanes... there seems to be some thing amiss at the planning stage. British manufacturers and navy personnel did a lot with what they got, (putting radar on Swordfish for example) but it seemed to be a lot of jamming square pegs into round holes.
> 
> Spitfire was never going to be an ideal naval fighter, IMO, simply because it was designed as a lightweight, fast (very streamlined), short range fighter.


The RN did not obtain full control of the FAA from the RAF until 24th May 1939. Just over 3 months before the outbreak of WW2. At that point it officially became the Air Branch of the Royal Navy (but was still referred to as the FAA until it again officially became the FAA in the 1950s).

Before that the story of naval aviation 1918-1939 saw a difficult relationship between the two services. The name tells you much. It was the Fleet Air Arm of the RAF, with all aviation matters decided by the Air Ministry. In theory the Admiralty had an input but it didn’t have the technical knowledge. The RAF, as the new kid on the block, sought to monopolise aviation related matters. The RAF didn’t have a huge interest in naval aviation, seeing it as peripheral to its mainstream bomber force development. That was even though the cost of the FAA aircraft came from the naval budget. And that lack of interest meant its preference was to provide the FAA with aircraft based on RAF types.

By way of example of the RAF attitude was that in the 1920s they set up joint committees to determine the requirements for aircraft for the FAA. But all the technical people were from the Air Ministry. RN input was limited by the AM to relatively junior RN officers.

Pilots were supposed to be 50/50 from RAF/RN with the navy providing the Observers. In the 1920s the largest FAA unit was the Flight because the RAF determined how many aircraft could be operated from a ship.It was 1933 before Flights amalgamated into squadrons after the RN demonstrated that carriers could operate more aircraft than the RAF believed. 

And career wise there were very few aviation positions for RN officers above flight / squadron leadership (Lt Commander). So anyone wanting to continue an RN career had to move to another specialism. In 1918 almost all the aviation qualified officers transferred to the RAF leaving the RN with minimal talent. To gain command of an aircraft carrier pre-war required rank and seniority. In practice that meant c30 years of service. So it was about 1942 before officers who had qualified in the earliest FAA courses in the 1920s, and already had c10 years of RN service before that, began to reach the level of captaining RN carriers.

But even after 1939 actual production was controlled by the Air Ministry until the Ministry of Aircraft Production took over in May 1940. And again the FAA had to play second fiddle to the RAF.

The relationship and it’s effects is complicated. The correction of the damage done to naval aviation in Britain that was done on 1 April 1918, didn’t begin to change until the Inskip Report in Dec 1937. The transfer couldn’t happen overnight. 17 months later the RN gets what it wanted. But change takes time, which turned out not to be available before the outbreak of WW2.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Jul 3, 2022)

Interesting, so it sounds like the fault lay more with the RAF not being interested in or understanding naval use of aircraft, almost the opposite of what I thought.

Surely the Skua, Fulmar, and Swordfish were not RAF types right? It seems like maybe mostly the fighters (Sea Gladiator, Sea Hurricane, Seafire)? And where does Coastal Command fit into this picture?


----------



## EwenS (Jul 3, 2022)

Coastal and maritime patrol was purely an RAF matter after 1 April 1918 on the formation of the RAF. Post WW1 the extensive network of squadrons and bases was heavily cut back to a bare bones of only a few squadrons of flying boats. It became Coastal Command in 1936. By 1939 it consisted of a few flying boat squadrons, 2 Vildebeest TB squadrons with the remainder, c12, equipped with Ansons. The Sunderland & Hudson were only just entering service and the Lerwick, Beaufort and Botha were on order. The focus was on the east coast of Britain and the North Sea. The First Lord of the Admiralty described it in 1940 as the “Cinderella Service”.

I said the preference was to use derivatives of RAF types but that was not always possible. So you have the Hawker Fury and Naval Nimrod derivative, the Hawker Hart and Naval Osprey derivative (there was a whole range of fighter, light bomber and army co-operation derivatives of the Hart from around 1930), Fairey IIIF, Gordon & Seal etc. In the 1930s the combination of RN roles required entirely new types developed. For example the RAF didn’t have a dive bomber.

When it comes to carrier fighters the development path in the RN is complicated. The use of the two seat fighter did have a logic to it in the pre-radar, morse radio days when spotting an enemy strike on the fleet depended on the Mk.I eyeball and carriers couldn’t carry enough fighters to maintain standing patrols. I’ll see if I can find time tomorrow to post some more detail on this.

Edit. The RN only had control of FAA aircraft when they went aboard a carrier inter war. The rest of the time they were an RAF responsibility. All maintenance personnel were RAF, even aboard ship. In May 1939 the RN inherited only 4 airfields from the RAF. It had to convert 2 squadrons (1 fighter & 1 TSR) from Courageous to second line training duties etc in May 1939. It really was building all its background support from almost nothing. It retained many RAF personnel well into the war years.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 3, 2022)

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> Surely the Skua, Fulmar, and Swordfish were not RAF types right? It seems like maybe mostly the fighters (Sea Gladiator, Sea Hurricane, Seafire)?


Skua was an RN type. It showed up late and for some reason they thought they "next type" would replace it but the dive bomber part somewhat disappeared. Yeah, we are told that Swordfish could dive bomb. 

Fulmar was improvisation. It wasn't what the RN wanted, but they had decided that the Skua wasn't going to the "fighter" job and it would take 3-4 years to get what they wanted and they didn't have 3-4 years. What could be done was take an RAF tactical bomber prototype (which the RAF didn't want anymore) fir it with eight .303 guns and a folding wing and short cut the 3-4 year development cycle. Unfortunately the they could not delivered the production Fulmars as soon as they thought which lead to the Sea Gladiator which, actually being in production (mostly) could be delivered in a few months and not years. Not what was wanted but what they could get. 

Swordfish was an RN type. But it showed little or no advance over the plane it replaced, except perhaps, it was cheaper and/or easier to maintain? It turns out it had a bit better low speed handling for bad weather operations but I am not sure that was in the original specifications or more of a happy circumstance. 

Sea Gladiator, as above, Just enough planed ordered to fit a few squadrons until the already ordered Fulmars could be delivered. 

Sea Hurricane, same thing only more so. It was in production and available. Turned out it had decent low speed handling and was fairly rugged and since the replacement for the interim Fulmar, which was the plane that would become the Firefly was now not going to be available until 1943 (?) years after they had hoped they had to use something, anything. 

Seafire. More of the same. The Sea Hurricane was much better than the Sea Gladiator but that was not saying a whole lot. That is not quite fair but they were drawing pictures of airplane with Griffon or Sabre engines (some with turrets) and eight to twelve .303 guns or four 20mm cannon in 1939. Compared to the "paper" airplanes the Sea Hurricane was strictly 2nd rate but since the "paper" Airplanes didn't exist it was the Sea Hurricane and the Seafire. The "Paper" airplanes staggered along to finally become the Firefly (way under powered or overweight, take your pick, in the MK 1 Version ) which didn't become operational (in combat) until July 1944. The other "Paper" airplane, laughing called a Base defense fighter (like it wasn't actually going to be put on carrier?) after a number of twists and turns wound up like this 









No explanation of why the land base fighter needed such a big flap system shows up in short histories. 
Or why the land base naval defence fighter needed a wing over 20% bigger than P-47 wing? 



Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> And where does Coastal Command fit into this picture?


That depends on who you ask. 
Bomber Command may not have come right out and said so, although they came close, that CC was a waste of resources that BC could use to destroy German subs on the building slips or material bound for German ships could be destroyed in the factories. 
And with asdic it was the Royal navies job to sink the few U boats that Bomber command didn't destroy in the building slips or in harbor. We know that worked out. 
we also know it didn't need hindsight as hundreds float planes/flying boats and land based aircraft were used in WW I for convoy escort. The WW I aircraft didn't sink much but in the last 6 months or so of the war very, very few ships in convoys escorted by aircraft were sunk. 
But not getting sunk doesn't make good headlines in the daily papers. Or get large sums of money from the treasury. 

So CC sort of was trapped in no-mans land. It was part of the RAF as far as manpower and budget went but it was viewed as a distraction from Bombing the enemy or preventing the enemy from bombing Britain.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Jul 3, 2022)

Shortround6 said:


> Skua was an RN type. It showed up late and for some reason they thought they "next type" would replace it but the dive bomber part somewhat disappeared. Yeah, we are told that Swordfish could dive bomb.
> 
> Fulmar was improvisation. It wasn't what the RN wanted, but they had decided that the Skua wasn't going to the "fighter" job and it would take 3-4 years to get what they wanted and they didn't have 3-4 years. What could be done was take an RAF tactical bomber prototype (which the RAF didn't want anymore) fir it with eight .303 guns and a folding wing and short cut the 3-4 year development cycle. Unfortunately the they could not delivered the production Fulmars as soon as they thought which lead to the Sea Gladiator which, actually being in production (mostly) could be delivered in a few months and not years. Not what was wanted but what they could get.
> 
> ...



Why did the Firefly (and I guess the Fulmar too) take so long to get into production? Bad initial design? Contradictory / impossible / changing requirements? And then there is the dreadful Barracuda. Yikes. And such a waste of a good name. How did they end up with that Chimera?



Shortround6 said:


> The other "Paper" airplane, laughing called a Base defense fighter (like it wasn't actually going to be put on carrier?) after a number of twists and turns wound up like this
> View attachment 675960
> 
> View attachment 675961
> ...


Wow that's a fascinating, if ungaily looking bird. What is that? Firebrand? What is the roll rate on that puppy?

Speaking of which EwenS, I had to look this baby up














Saunders-Roe A.36 Lerwick - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org





Can't believe I never heard of it before. Nice looking plane it's too bad it seems to have been a bit of a dud. They got lucky with the Sunderland, but surely the had long traditions of big flying boats.

Also while trying to find that mystery plane, I blundered across this magnificently hideous beast. I thought only the early 20th Century French made planes this ugly?








Shortround6 said:


> That depends on who you ask.
> Bomber Command may not have come right out and said so, although they came close, that CC was a waste of resources that BC could use to destroy German subs on the building slips or material bound for German ships could be destroyed in the factories.
> And with asdic it was the Royal navies job to sink the few U boats that Bomber command didn't destroy in the building slips or in harbor. We know that worked out.
> we also know it didn't need hindsight as hundreds float planes/flying boats and land based aircraft were used in WW I for convoy escort. The WW I aircraft didn't sink much but in the last 6 months or so of the war very, very few ships in convoys escorted by aircraft were sunk.
> ...


Very interesting. It's amazing how well they ultimately did in their very important job, though granted it took a while to get it together.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 3, 2022)

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> Why did the Firefly (and I guess the Fulmar too) take so long to get into production? Bad initial design? Contradictory / impossible / changing requirements? And then there is the dreadful Barracuda. Yikes. And such a waste of a good name. How did they end up with that Chimera?


The British, in general, were chronically understaffed in regards to engineers, draftsmen and technical people. Perhaps the US was too in 1938-39 but the US was larger country, had a larger industrial base to draw on and had 1939-40 to catch up. 
The Firefly was put on hold for several reasons. One was that RR put the Griffon engine on hold for a while in 1940 while they concentrated on the Merlin. Fairey was trying to handle several programs at once. They were trying to farm out Swordfish production while building the Fulmar and they were trying to improve the Fulmar (like fit a more powerful engine which needed a bigger radiator and oil cooler) to give them time to work on the Firefly AND they were trying get the Barracuda to work and that one may have gotten caught in the Griffon shuffle. 
It was definitely caught in an engine shuffle of some sort having been designed for the RR EXE 24 cylinder sleeve valve engine. Rolls-Royce Exe - Wikipedia
Since nearly every plane gains weight as it goes through development perhaps the EXE was too small any way but the first Merlins tried in the Barracuda were too small. With the Griffon running behind all they could do was try boosting the Merlin. 

Changing/difficult requirements didn't help the Firefly. 


Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> Wow that's a fascinating, if ungaily looking bird. What is that? Firebrand?


Yes and again the British fell victim to lack of resources. There were a crap load of British planes that were supposed to use the Sabre engine (or use the RR Vulture) in 1938-1940 but development dragged on and some planes were simply canceled and others looked for alternative power plants. When Blackburn was told there would be no more Sabres for the Firebrand (top photo from the rear) as ALL Sabre production was earmarked for the Typhoon/Tempest, they went for the Centaurus radial to save the plane. Changing requirement (it looked like the Spitfire could do the day interceptor role) lead to the government suggesting an 15-16 in splice in the wing in-between the landing gear so it would hold an 18in torpedo. By the time they got the results to work the war was over. 


Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> Can't believe I never heard of it before. Nice looking plane it's too bad it seems to have been a bit of a dud. They got lucky with the Sunderland, but surely the had long traditions of big flying boats.


the Lerwick more than a bit a bit of dud. It was an outright menace to it's crews. 
"The Lerwick was immediately found to be unstable in the air, on the water and not suited to "hands off" flying. The latter was a major problem in an aircraft designed for long-range patrols."
"failed to remedy its undesirable characteristics, which included a vicious stall and unsatisfactory rates of roll and yaw"
"On one engine the Lerwick could not maintain height, nor could it maintain a constant heading, as the controls could not counter the torque of one engine on maximum power.[9]​ An engine failure would inevitably see the aircraft flying in slowly descending circles"

A twin engine plane that cannot maintain height on one engine and cannot fly a strait course on one engine has no business fly more than few miles off shore. 
It is one thing to try and fix a few things, the Lerwick had too many problems. Even with more powerful engines you needed larger vertical fin and rudder to steer a straight course (and maybe better ailerons) and trying to land a large, heavy flying boat that has a viscous stall sounds like a rash of landing accidents waiting to happen. 



Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> Very interesting. It's amazing how well they ultimately did in their very important job, though granted it took a while to get it together.


The crews, as many British crews did, performed very well considering the problems they were dealing with. Unfortunately the problems often included ineffective anti-sub bombs and aircraft/engine/propeller combinations that were not really safe for long over water fights.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jul 3, 2022)

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> Interesting, so it sounds like the fault lay more with the RAF not being interested in or understanding naval use of aircraft, almost the opposite of what I thought.



I can't add much to what's been posted already, but the Air Ministry rather than the RAF was responsible for military air matters. It wasn't as simple as a misunderstanding, as the Air Min bods were advised by the Admiralty, after all, the Admiralty wrote the requirements but not the specifications - they'd say "we need a single-seat carrier fighter, and a long range observation aeroplane that can operate from ships' catapults, and we need a dive bomber and a new torpedo bomber." To which the Air Ministry said "here's a fighter/dive bomber (Skua), here's a single-seat fighter that comes with an observer and can be operated from a ship's catapult (Fulmar) and here's a torpedo dive bomber reconnaissance aeroplane (Barracuda) because there's only enough space on a carrier for a few types rather than type specific aircraft and we need to save deck space..."

The problem was peacetime, if that could be considered a problem, but money was tight for the military between the wars and each of the services attempted to justify their existence in the wake of the Great War. The RAF did so by the sheer determination of Trenchard and co as they realised that following the massive losses on the front the army would need rebuilding and the navy, having just gotten rid of a shed ton of obsolete warships needed modern stuff like aircraft carriers. So, the RAF needed to justify its existence and because money was tight the navy's aviation needs took second fiddle, and because Britain only had a handful of carriers.



Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> And where does Coastal Command fit into this picture?




The duties of coastal patrol were all a part of the RNAS' (Royal Naval Air Service) duties during the Great War, so the roles of maritime patrol came under the RAF jurisdiction from April 1918 onwards. Coastal Command as a separate structure was created in 1936, at the same time Fighter Command and Bomber Command was created. It was a structural overhaul of the RAF for admin purposes. The roles of the commands were obvious as per their names, and meant that rather than just having different squadrons operating different aeroplanes to do different jobs as was the case beforehand, the different commands would coordinate role specific duties. 

The 200 series RAF squadrons were former RNAS units incorporated into the RAF to avoid numerical clashes, there was a 1 Sqn RFC and a 1 Sqn RNAS, and so these 200 series squadrons became maritime units. For example, 1 Sqn RNAS was a fighter unit operating Sopwith Triplanes, but became 201 Sqn and operated Southampton flying boats for maritime patrol. Today it still exists and operates the Poseidon.

Because of the aforementioned lack of money and aircraft carriers, land based maritime patrol and torpedo carriers became a thing aside from seaplanes and flying boats and/or aircraft carrier based assets for the same, which most of the world was building. Coastal Command was designed to coordinate its operation with the Admiralty as well, so it was a bit more nautically inclined than its brethren within the other commands.

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


----------



## EwenS (Jul 4, 2022)

Shortround6 said:


> The British, in general, were chronically understaffed in regards to engineers, draftsmen and technical people. Perhaps the US was too in 1938-39 but the US was larger country, had a larger industrial base to draw on and had 1939-40 to catch up.
> The Firefly was put on hold for several reasons. One was that RR put the Griffon engine on hold for a while in 1940 while they concentrated on the Merlin. Fairey was trying to handle several programs at once. They were trying to farm out Swordfish production while building the Fulmar and they were trying to improve the Fulmar (like fit a more powerful engine which needed a bigger radiator and oil cooler) to give them time to work on the Firefly AND they were trying get the Barracuda to work and that one may have gotten caught in the Griffon shuffle.
> It was definitely caught in an engine shuffle of some sort having been designed for the RR EXE 24 cylinder sleeve valve engine. Rolls-Royce Exe - Wikipedia
> Since nearly every plane gains weight as it goes through development perhaps the EXE was too small any way but the first Merlins tried in the Barracuda were too small. With the Griffon running behind all they could do was try boosting the Merlin.
> ...


Probably the biggest delay to the Firefly was the confusion surrounding what the Admiralty actually wanted.

The original specs N.8/39 and N.9/39 (2 seat fighter & turret fighter respectively) were issued by the Air Ministry in early 1939. A number of companies tendered for one or other or both by late in the year. Then the Admiralty began reviewing what it wanted and word of that leaked out to the industry. Then in Nov/Dec the Admiralty rejected ALL the submissions, decided they didn’t want a new turret fighter, but did want both a single seater and a two seater but based on the same airframe and sent everyone back to the drawing board. A meeting of the Admiralty and all the interested companies then took place on, IIRC, 5 Jan 1940 to select a winner.

So over at Fairey, the initial 1939 submissions were designed by Marcelle Lobelle which bore at least a passing resemblance to the Fulmar. By the end of the year he was in the process of leaving the company to be replaced by HE Chaplin. According to Harrison in “Fairey Firefly” Chaplin had to start with a clean sheet of paper and the eventual design was the better for it!

Given the timescale involved, Dec 1939 to Jan 1940, none of the companies would have had time to prepare more than outline designs for presentation to the Admiralty. At that Jan meeting the Admiralty chose the two seat Fairey design that went on to become the Firefly. A new spec, N.5/40, was written around that proposal and an order for 200 placed by June 1940. 

So the Firefly went from pure paper proposal to flying prototype inside 2 years (first flight 22 Dec 1941) in the middle of a war with the crisis of mid-1940. But there were then handling problems to resolve and delays over what version was required by the Admiralty (basic fighter or long nosed night fighter NF.II, with the latter eventually being dropped). Production began at low rates in late 1942, but the first squadron didn’t form until Sept 1943. By the end of the war only 7 squadrons had been equipped with them incl 3 night fighter, of which only the first 3 saw combat.

At that same Jan 1940 meeting, the Admiralty considered that the single seat Blackburn proposal powered by a Bristol Hercules engine was also worth pursuing. So again a new spec was written around it but specifying the more powerful Napier Sabre engine in June 1940 and an initial order for 50 awarded. It first flew in Feb 1942 but again suffered from handling problems. Then the Admiralty decision that, since the Seafire was available it should become a torpedo fighter requiring a redesign, then the Air Ministry decision to divert all Sabre engines to Typhoon resulting in another redesign for a new engine.

Mid-1940 then sees the RN requesting Spitfires again, and looking to the USA with an order for an initial 100 G-36B Martlet II for delivery in 1941 (at the same time it inherited the Martlet I from the French order).

“Farming out” Swordfish production was the least of Fairey’s worries. The Admiralty wanted Blackburn to become a second source for Albacore production (400 aircraft). Then in Nov 1939 realised that, with Swordfish production coming to an end at Fairey Hayes factory, if the Swordfish jigs (7,000 sets of tools were eventually involved) were passed to Blackburn then they could get 400 less resource hungry Swordfish sooner. They were prepared to accept the loss of performance to get the aircraft earlier. But it still meant an approx 11 month production gap. Fairey would have had a much bigger task helping Blackburn set up an Albacore line.

The Barracuda was a real headache for Fairey. Aug 1939 RR suspends development work on the Boreas/Exe engine. So the air cooled Boreas/Exe has to be replaced with a heavier liquid cooled Merlin with all the added extra weight of its radiators etc. That represented a major redesign. That is probably about the time that design team would be winding down work on that design as it moved to the prototyping stage. In mid-1939 it was scheduled to succeed the Fulmar on the production line at Fairey’s Heaton Chapel, Stockport factory in April 1941, with production scheduled to last 12 months before a successor aircraft would have emerged. In fact production didn’t begin until April 1942 and continued until 1946. The successor spec wasn’t issued until 1943 (O.5/43 that led to the Fairey Spearfish, first flight 5 July 1945). In more normal times a successor spec would have been expected around 1940.

In common with much of the British aircraft industry, Fairey was also taking on additional responsibilities. It took over an ex vehicle factory adjacent to its Stockport factory as a Govt owned shadow factory for licence production of Beaufighter and Halifax aircraft from early 1941.

Another matter to consider, which gives some indication of the size of the Fairey operation in 1939, is the production rates. Peacetime rates were expected to be in the order of 15-20 fighters and 35-40 TSR per month. The Air Ministry expected, in 1939, that wartime production rates would see these doubled. Having said that Fairey Heaton Chapel did not complete its last Battle order until around Sept 1940.


----------



## EwenS (Jul 4, 2022)

Background to the Sea Gladiator acquisition. Remember Inskip reported at the end of 1937. There were 38 Sea Gladiator Interim followed by 60 Sea Gladiator II delivered late 1938/early 1939 with the latter issued first to 801 & 802 squadrons on Courageous and Glorious. Thanks to NewGolconda over on the NavWeaps forum for this summary.


Summarised from Hobbs Dawn of Carrier Strike.

***

A Directorate of Air Material (DAM) was established within the Admiralty in January 1938 tasked with forming staff requirements for new material, including aircraft, to meet Admiralty policy. It was composed of a mixture of executive officers with flying experience, some of the more senior members being observers, and technical officers and, unlike other Admiralty technical departments, it reported to an executive officer, ACNS (Air).

There was serious concern that the remaining 61 Osprey and Nimrod fighter/scouts were insufficient to sustain the FAA fighter force. On 2 February 1938 the Admiralty wrote to the Air Council informing it that if, as at that time appeared likely, the Blackburn Skua and Roc 'proved to be aerodynamically unsound the fighting strength of the Fleet Air Arm would be almost negligible until the end of 1939 when the converted P4/34 (fulmar)was expected to be available'.3 The Admiralty asked whether, if an emergency arose before that time, the Air Council would be prepared to supply 'the greatest possible number of Gladiators', modified as necessary to operate from carriers. 

On 15 February the Air Council decided that in an emergency it would try to meet the Admiralty's request 'but whether this could, in the event, be done would depend on the home defence situation and the Government of the day would have to decide on the relative priority of the requirements of the two Services'. They did decide, however, to order an additional fifty Gladiators to cover the probable shortage of fighters in the RAF in 1939 but also, partly, to meet the Admiralty's request. Following the government approval of aircraft procurement scheme L this order was increased to 350. 

Even before the Air Council reply was sent, however, it received another letter from the Admiralty which pointed out that even if the Skua and Roc proved to be satisfactory there would still be a serious shortage of fighters in the Fleet Air Arm in the latter part of 1938. It was asked, therefore, if two squadrons of modified Gladiators with full reserves could be lent to the Fleet Air Arm as soon as possible and remain on loan until the shortage was overcome.

At a meeting between 5SL, Vice Admiral Sir Alexander Ramsay, and the Air Member for Supply and Organisation, Air Vice Marshal William Welsh, it was pointed out that the agreed establishment of Fleet Air Arm fighter squadrons was, at the time, three squadrons with a total of thirty-three operational aircraft and a further fifty-two in reserve, a total of eighty-five.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## NevadaK (Jul 4, 2022)

Reading back through this thread, I'm beginning to sense that the RN/FAA didn't have a clearly defined vision for the role of the aircraft carrier and this shows in the types of aircraft being designed and flip flopping in design specs. Thinking about the Corsair vs Seafire part of this thread, the Corsair must have been a real boon to the FAA especially given its capacity as a multi-role platform. Ordnance capacity (other than the torpedo) is on par with the Barracude and well above the Seafire all the while being able to serve as an air superiority fighter. One could imagine that if enough had been available that you could have seen carriers with a majority of Corsairs and very few other types.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Frog (Jul 4, 2022)

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> I thought only the early 20th Century French made planes this ugly?
> 
> View attachment 675997




You missed the subtelry of Cubism and Art Deco inspiration.

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


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Jul 4, 2022)

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> Well there does also seem to be some kind of issue specifically with the FAA and their requirements. I seem to remember something about a reshuffling of decision making bodies shortly before the war. Was it that fleet admirals were deciding matters about aircraft? The two seat fighters, the low altitude engine power settings, persistence of biplanes... there seems to be some thing amiss at the planning stage. British manufacturers and navy personnel did a lot with what they got, (putting radar on Swordfish for example) but it seemed to be a lot of jamming square pegs into round holes.
> 
> Spitfire was never going to be an ideal naval fighter, IMO, simply because it was designed as a lightweight, fast (very streamlined), short range fighter.


The USN was hanging onto biplane fighters well after the RN. The USN finally equipped its VF squadrons just in time for Pearl Harbor. If the US had entered the war in September 1939 all its fighter squadrons would have been flying F3Fs into battle. Something like 1/2 the dive bomber squadrons were also flying biplanes. As I have pointed out previously the USN standard torpedo bomber was a monoplane with the performance of a biplane.

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


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Jul 4, 2022)

it's interesting to kind of contrast this with Japanese and American approaches.

The Japanese had medium to long range scout / recon planes, some with air to air fighting capability and some not, in a similar niche to the Fulmar, but they didn't operate them from carriers. Instead they were float planes or land based. Ki-15, Ki-30, Ki-32, and Ki-52 were all kind of at least moderately successful land based scout aircraft. A couple, like the Ki-15 had surprisingly good performance (300 mph, allegedly). These are a mix of Army and Navy types (some used by both branches) originally used mostly in China but often pressed into service in the Pacific.

The only recon plane I can think of which flew from carriers was the Nakajima C6N _*Saiun* aka _"Myrt" which had very good performance (380 mph top speed, almost 5,000 km range) but it came too late to be of much use in the war. The Army had the equally fast twin engined Ki-46 of course which caused the Allies some problems for a while but it seemed to become victim of Allied fighters fairly often by the mid-war. The Japanese also had the interesting land based Kyushu Q1W which was a dedicated ASW plane.

They had their series of float planes which flew from cruisers and battleships, probably the most successful of which was the E13A , followed by the increasingly interesting but never really fully developed E14, E15, and E16

Then they had the armed scouts which side from land based fighter types (the A6M, with it's excellent range, made a good scout) And of course they had their bombers, which were used a lot for scouting until around late 1942 when they started getting shot down too much, and their heavy fighter the Ki-45 which had good range, so it made a decent armed scout, though nowhere near the firepower of a Beaufighter and seemed to be highly vulnerable to P-40s etc..

The Japanese had float / seaplane fighters like the excellent A6M2-N, the even better N1K1 of course, and the adequate F1M "Pete" biplane. These were all pretty good as fighters but had short range for a scout. The F1M was probably fairly similar in it's niche to both a Sea Gladiator and Sea Hurricane. The Allies really had nothing like the A6M2-N or N1K1 floatplane unless you count the (far too late to matter) Currtiss SC.

and their big flying boats like the H6 (similar to a PBY) and the H8K, which is a pretty close analogue for a Sunderland.

I guess the Japanese ultimately didn't need a carrier based scout in the early war because they had the Zero, which worked as an excellent armed scout. Only when the Zero started getting out matched and especially outrun, did they perceive the need for a dedicated carrier based scout in the C6N, but that came to late to be useful. I think a Zero definitely makes a better armed scout than a Fulmar though in every respect.

I think they made good use of float planes, in which they were superior to both the US and RN I'd say.

With flying boats it was similar, the Sunderland was very good though slower than a H8K. The PBY was very reliable and good enough, the Anglo-Amnerican / ANZAC forces also had the very useful Hudson, and later the faster but a little more flawed Ventura; then they had the Navalized B-24 (PB4Y) which proved very helpful as an armed scout with it's excellent range. The Allies also had the superb Beaufighter which I think really proved very useful, the B-17s which were quite good as heavy long range scouts, with endurance similar to a PBY but much tougher if they got caught by fighters. P-38s also made good armed scouts, and the various US naval bomber and fighter types, of which I think the F4U IIRC had the best range for a figther and the TBF /TBM was probably the most useful as a scout-bomber / ASW.

Skua, Swordfish, Albacore and Sea Gladiator, Sea Hurricane, and Seafire all had very short range so not so great as scouts. But good in a fight. Swordish (and Albacaore?) also had radar pretty early on, though they also ended up putting that on TBFs, F6Fs and a lot of land based planes.


Of all those, I'd give this list for the best Recon / Scout types that actually had an impact in the war in the Pacific, based purely on my capricious opinion.

*Scout-fighters, land based, single engine*
A6M, then way down the list, F4F and P-40, then once it became available, F4U, P51

*Scout-fighters, twin engine*
Beaufighter, P-38, Ki-45

*Scout-fighters, carrier based*
A6M, ...then way down the list, F4F, Fulmar... later when they became available, F6F and F4U but range wasn't so great.

*Seaplane scouts*
E13 kind of stands alone here I think

*Seaplane fighters*
A6M2-N, F1M

*Scout bombers, single engine*
TBF, SBD, D4Y, D3A (rating the US types a bit better because they are a bit harder to shoot down)

*Scout bombers, multi-engine*
B-17, B-24, Wellington, Beaufort, Hudson, Ventura, G4M.... G3M and Ki-21 a bit further down the list because so vulnerbale. Maybe Ki-49 and Ki-48 might be good in this niche

*Flying boats*
H8K, Sunderland, PBY, H6K


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Jul 4, 2022)

Reluctant Poster said:


> The USN was hanging onto biplane fighters well after the RN. The USN finally equipped its VF squadrons just in time for Pearl Harbor. If the US had entered the war in September 1939 all its fighter squadrons would have been flying F3Fs into battle. Something like 1/2 the dive bomber squadrons were also flying biplanes. As I have pointed out previously the USN standard torpedo bomber was a monoplane with the performance of a biplane.



All fair points, although they got the F4F which was better than any RN fighter in time ... TBD was definitely a dud.


----------



## EwenS (Jul 4, 2022)

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> Skua, Swordfish, Albacore and Sea Gladiator, Sea Hurricane, and Seafire all had very short range so not so great as scouts. But good in a fight. Swordish (and Albacaore?) also had radar pretty early on, though they also ended up putting that on TBFs, F6Fs and a lot of land based planes.


ASV (Air to Surface Vessel) Radar first became available in early 1940. ASV.I was fitted to Hudson’s and Sunderland’s. Improved ASV.II appeared in late 1940 and began to be fitted to Swordfish in early 1941. Some of those involved in the Bismarck chase were so fitted. 

There were technical problems getting ASV.II to work on the Albacore, so it was only fitted to them from very late in 1941. I’ve been looking for an exact reason for several years now but so far have found nothing. Hence the reason why Indomitable had a couple of radar equipped Swordfish added to her air group during Operation C, the Japanese raid into the IO in March/April 1942.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Jul 4, 2022)

EwenS said:


> ASV (Air to Surface Vessel) Radar first became available in early 1940. ASV.I was fitted to Hudson’s and Sunderland’s. Improved ASV.II appeared in late 1940 and began to be fitted to Swordfish in early 1941. Some of those involved in the Bismarck chase were so fitted.
> 
> There were technical problems getting ASV.II to work on the Albacore, so it was only fitted to them from very late in 1941. I’ve been looking for an exact reason for several years now but so far have found nothing. Hence the reason why Indomitable had a couple of radar equipped Swordfish added to her air group during Operation C, the Japanese raid into the IO in March/April 1942.



Well it was certainly a neat trick. It made all those aircraft much more useful especially the 'stringbag'. More or less turns into a day / night all weather attack plane too right?


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 4, 2022)

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> I guess the Japanese ultimately didn't need a carrier based scout in the early war because they had the Zero, which worked as an excellent armed scout


A "scout" without a long range radio is pretty much useless. 
Scouts that need accompanying 2-3 seat aircraft to provide navigation support are also redundant/useless. 

Vals and Kates could be used as scouts. It does dilute the strike force but using A6Ms as scouts and waiting for them to fly back from spotting something to land on the carrier or use a short range radio to report a sighting for 1-2 hours earlier doesn't make for very good strikes either. 


Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> also had radar pretty early on, though they also ended up putting that on TBFs, F6Fs and a lot of land based planes.


Radar also changed considerably as the war went on, also for long range search you search range was rather dependent on the altitude of the plane. 

Even the US didn't have enough radar equipped night fighters to use them as distant scouts. Even some big carriers only had 4-6 radar equipped night fighters.


----------



## EwenS (Jul 4, 2022)

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> Well it was certainly a neat trick. It made all those aircraft much more useful especially the 'stringbag'. More or less turns into a day / night all weather attack plane too right?


Not quite. In the early days maintaining and operating a radar set was a black art. Results were variable with many separate variables affecting detection ranges. ASV radar failures were just one factor that helped contribute to the German success in the Channel Dash in Feb 1942. Things got better as the war went on especially after the introduction of centimetric sets.

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


----------



## EwenS (Jul 4, 2022)

Shortround6 said:


> A "scout" without a long range radio is pretty much useless.
> Scouts that need accompanying 2-3 seat aircraft to provide navigation support are also redundant/useless.
> 
> Vals and Kates could be used as scouts. It does dilute the strike force but using A6Ms as scouts and waiting for them to fly back from spotting something to land on the carrier or use a short range radio to report a sighting for 1-2 hours earlier doesn't make for very good strikes either.
> ...


I don’t believe it was a shortage of night fighter and strike aircraft. From 1944 the USN CV Air groups all had a night fighter flight attached for defensive purposes especially around dawn and dusk.

But from Aug 1944 they started to deploy entire night air groups. First on the CVL Independence, then Enterprise, Saratoga and finally the Bon Homme Richard. Those groups fulfilled both offensive and defensive roles with F6F-5(N) and TBM Radar equipped aircraft of various models. A CVEG(N) was also being readied for service as the war ended.

Edit:- USMC squadrons also flew night fighter F6F from various Pacific shore bases. As the war was ending the first F7F night fighters were just arriving on Okinawa.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 4, 2022)

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> Well it was certainly a neat trick. It made all those aircraft much more useful especially the 'stringbag'. More or less turns into a day / night all weather attack plane too right?


To hit the Bismarck needed two types of Swordfish because they couldnt carry both RADAR and a torpedo. In ASW warfare it was purely by chance as close as you could get to a helicopter in WW2. It would take a particular genius to see that future requirement in 1939, the boffins were working on airborne RADAR but the UK was still struggling to deploy Chain Home around all of its coast.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## EwenS (Jul 4, 2022)

pbehn said:


> To hit the Bismarck needed two types of Swordfish because they couldnt carry both RADAR and a torpedo. In ASW warfare it was purely by chance as close as you could get to a helicopter in WW2. It would take a particular genius to see that future requirement in 1939, the boffins were working on airborne RADAR but the UK was still struggling to deploy Chain Home around all of its coast.


Not true.

All 9 Swordfish of 825 squadron launched from Victorious against the Bismarck carried torpedoes and were all equipped with ASV.II Radar. The leader got a radar contact on Bismarck at 16 miles.

On Ark Royal, the first strike that targeted the Sheffield had a single radar equipped Swordfish but several were launched as part of the second strike. Again all carried torpedoes.

ASV.II used Yagi aerials on the leading edge of the upper wing in front of the pilot and on the outer interplane struts. These did not interfere with the carriage of a torpedo between the undercarriage legs.

Come 1944 however, the Swordfish Mk.III was equipped with a radome for a centimetric ASV set between its undercarriage legs. As a result it was unable to carry a torpedo. It’s main role was ASW with depth charges and rockets although they did take part in a number of anti-shipping strikes off Norway in 1944/45. They were often referred to as pregnant Swordfish.

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


----------



## pbehn (Jul 4, 2022)

EwenS said:


> Not true.
> 
> All 9 Swordfish of 825 squadron launched from Victorious against the Bismarck carried torpedoes and were all equipped with ASV.II Radar. The leader got a radar contact on Bismarck at 16 miles.
> 
> ...


Thanks, I confused those two bits of info. I knew they were using one plane to guide another.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 4, 2022)

EwenS said:


> I don’t believe it was a shortage of night fighter and strike aircraft. From 1944 the USN CV Air groups all had a night fighter flight attached for defensive purposes especially around dawn and dusk.


The strike aircraft (Avengers and dive bombers) often had radar using the Yagi aerials. Since they had somebody besides the pilot as a radar operator they were probably a better bet for "scout duty" than using single seat night fighters were were not common.


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Jul 5, 2022)

Shortround6 said:


> A "scout" without a long range radio is pretty much useless.
> Scouts that need accompanying 2-3 seat aircraft to provide navigation support are also redundant/useless.



You got a good point about the notion that scouts need radios to really work well, but even without a radio I would not go so far as to say 'useless'.

A6Ms routinely navigated over long distances in Pacific, from the Aleutians to Australia.


Shortround6 said:


> Vals and Kates could be used as scouts. It does dilute the strike force but using A6Ms as scouts and waiting for them to fly back from spotting something to land on the carrier or use a short range radio to report a sighting for 1-2 hours earlier doesn't make for very good strikes either.



And you are sure they never had a long range radio in an A6M?



Shortround6 said:


> Radar also changed considerably as the war went on, also for long range search you search range was rather dependent on the altitude of the plane.
> 
> Even the US didn't have enough radar equipped night fighters to use them as distant scouts. Even some big carriers only had 4-6 radar equipped night fighters.



Obviously all of this changed as the war went on. With regard to radio and the Swordfish, I was mainly referring to strikes in bad weather or at night.


----------



## yulzari (Jul 5, 2022)

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> The Army had the equally fast twin engined Ki-46 of course which caused the Allies some problems for a while but it seemed to become victim of Allied fighters fairly often by the mid-war.


Bill, 1942 was the middle of the war. From the point of view of my father who had spent the three previous years in active service across three continents.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 5, 2022)

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> You got a good point about the notion that scouts need radios to really work well, but even without a radio I would not go so far as to say 'useless'.
> 
> A6Ms routinely navigated over long distances in Pacific, from the Aleutians to Australia.





Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> And you are sure they never had a long range radio in an A6M?


Never is a long time but a lot of the early A6m's didn't even have a radio or it was taken out, sometimes because the static from the engine ignition system was so bad as to make the radio useless. 
For radios in general using voice instead of morse code shortened the range by around a factor of 3. 

Long range radios used higher power transmitters, they used different frequencies, and they used different antennae's because of the different frequencies. 
A lot of early war (and some later war) used variable length antennae's to tune the antennae to the frequency being used. Some aircraft had 100ft or more of wire on a spool that was let out and retracted by a hand crank to get the length of antennae to match the desired frequency. 

A lot of western fighters had short range radios in the early part of the war. Some still had short range radios at the end. Short is relative but both radios and antennae's made good progress during the war. 

as for useless, that rather depends on the definition of "scout" and/or what you definition of reconnaissance is. 
If all you what is a plane to fly over an Island and fly back and tell when it lands if the enemy has troops on the Island then perhaps the plane will meet your goal. 
If the plane flies over a group of enemy ships and has to fly for 3 hours to make it back to land to report it is pretty useless. The enemy ships can move over 60 miles in any direction by the time the plane makes it back, by the time a strike can be formed up, launched and make it back to the "target area" the possible target area could be 140-180 miles in radius (280-360 miles in diameter) OR, the enemy strike aircraft are bombing your runways/flight decks as you are forming up to take off. 
Plane with a working radio gives you 3 hours extra warning.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Jul 5, 2022)

Just want to say the information in is thread is brilliant.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## EwenS (Jul 5, 2022)

Further to my post #187 and this comment


NevadaK said:


> Reading back through this thread, I'm beginning to sense that the RN/FAA didn't have a clearly defined vision for the role of the aircraft carrier and this shows in the types of aircraft being designed and flip flopping in design specs. Thinking about the Corsair vs Seafire part of this thread, the Corsair must have been a real boon to the FAA especially given its capacity as a multi-role platform. Ordnance capacity (other than the torpedo) is on par with the Barracude and well above the Seafire all the while being able to serve as an air superiority fighter. One could imagine that if enough had been available that you could have seen carriers with a majority of Corsairs and very few other types.


I’ll try to summarise the RN fighter position interwar. Friedman’s “Carrier Air Power” and “Fighters over the Fleet. Naval Air Defence from Biplanes to the Cold War” are good reads on the subject. But first turn the clock back to 1920 and review the carrier position.

USN
The USN only began conversion of the collier Jupiter to CV-1 Langley in March 1920, completing her 2 years later. Capacity 36 but with very difficult hangar operation (aircraft had to be craned on and off the lift as it was not flush with hangar floor).

IJN
Hosho laid down Dec 1920 and completed 2 years later with RN assistance. Capacity 15 aircraft.

RN
Ignoring the semi-carriers Furious & Vindictive, the RN completed Argus (capacity 18), the world’s first flush decked carrier, in Sept 1918. Eagle’s conversion was suspended after trials in 1918 pending experience with Argus. Construction began again in 1921 and she completed in early 1924 (capacity c30 aircraft). Hermes, the world’s first purpose designed carrier, laid down Jan 1918 and underwent several redesigns before completing in 1924. Capacity 20 aircraft.

July 1920 the RN decides to convert Furious & Courageous to full carriers, beginning the strip down of Furious in 1921 before the Washington Conference starts. Glorious is added to the schedule post Washington. These complete F 1925 (capacity 36), C converted 1924-28 (capacity 48) and Glorious converted 1924-30).

Washington Conference
Allows the US and Japan to realise something from their to be cancelled capital ship programmes by allowing conversion of two ships each of a size in excess of the carrier Treaty limit of 27,000 tons. Britain has no such ships building at the time of the Conference. Hence Lexington and Saratoga (completed late 1927 capacity 90 aircraft) and Akagi & Kaga (completed 1927-29 capacity 60).

After that the USN goes smaller with the unsuccessful Ranger and Japan also goes smaller, trying to exploit a Treaty loophole closed in the 1930 London Treaty, with the even less successful Ryūjō. A period of experimentation for them.

So Britain leads the world in carrier development in the early 1920s. It falls to it to work out how best to equip and use the aircraft carrier.

How did the RN see the roles for its carrier aircraft? Dec 1919 CinC Atlantic Fleet defined them as:-
Reconnaissance (edit - to find the enemy fleet)
Spotting (edit - for the fleet’s big guns)
Torpedo attack (and depth bombing subs) (edit - to slow down the enemy fleet for RN big guns to catch them)
Machine gun attack on hostile aircraft and on exposed personnel aboard enemy ships and destroyers. (Edit - principally to allow unimpeded torpedo attack)

But the focus was on obtaining air superiority by destroying an enemy’s carriers so denying them a platform to strike back.

So the initial fighters were WW1 types followed by the unsuccessful Nieuport Nightjar (a version of the RAF Nighthawk) and then the purpose designed Fairey Flycatcher (because the RAF Sopwith Snipe wasn’t suitable for carrier use). That led to the Hawker Nimrod in the early 1930s. (Which was still in service in 1938).

But it was the reconnaissance task that led to the development of the two seat fighter. What the RN defined as “Fleet Reconaissance” involved the initial search for an enemy fleet, after which aircraft involved could retreat. The other task, defined as “Contact Reconnaissance”, later called “Fighter Reconnaissance”,involved shadowing the enemy, possibly under the threat of interception, which required a faster more manoeuvrable aircraft. But that type still required two seats so that it could radio its contacts to the fleet and find its way back to the parent carrier. That led to the two seat Hawker Osprey. A secondary role for that aircraft then became supporting the torpedo bomber attack by machine gunning the AA crews on enemy ships. And from that it became short step to adding bombs and the design of the dive bomber and the Blackburn Skua.

As for defence of the fleet itself (or for knocking down an enemy’s gunfire spotters when both fleets were in proximity to each other) that involved single seaters that couldn’t venture far from the fleet or they wouldn’t find their way back. Added to that the problem was that spotting an enemy attack depended on the Mk.I eyeball. And exercises in the late 1920s revealed that pilots on standing patrols (CAP in today’s terms) had difficulty spotting an enemy, often more-so than spotters on the ships that they defending. And single seat fighters of the period did not carry radios, let alone voice radios, allowing direction from the ship. And the carriers couldn’t carry enough fighters to maintain permanent patrols in enough strength to keep the fleet safe. And as aircraft speeds increased in the 1930s the problem increased significantly as interception times shortened.

So the fleet came to depend more on its AA guns and the RN plowed a lot of money into High Angle Control Systems to increase their accuracy, with fighters providing an outer layer of defence to break up attacks. Ultimately the Abyssinian Crisis showed that fighter protection was virtually impossible and that the torpedo aircraft, needed to slow down an enemy fleet to bring it within big gun range, would need protection under armour and the Armoured carrier concept was born.

The small air groups on British carriers are often looked on unfavourably compared with the USN. USN Carrier tactics until 1942 called for them to operate individually. From the early 1930s Britain was practicing multi carrier operations, pooling the airgroups of several ships for attack & defence. 1938 plans for example called for 4 carriers in the Mediterranean, something reiterated in 1940 when carrier numbers were reviewed. Unfortunately the early outbreak of war in 1939 meant that those plans couldn’t be realised.

As for aircraft radios, AIUI, HF voice radio telephony only began to appear in the early 1930s with VHF around 1939/40. Radar direction of fighters only began off Norway in April 1940 with the RN fighter direction school set up in mid-1941 with 2 US participants. The USN set up its first direction school in Sept 1941, using much of what the RN had already learned.

By 1938 the RN knew it didn’t have a viable short range interceptor, hence the desire to acquire Sea Gladiator or better. Skua and then Fulmar have to fill that role short term.

Couple of points about the USN. The dive bomber grew out of 1920s attempts at fitting bombs to fighters to wreck carrier decks. All pre war US fighters were designed to carry small bombs. The USN moved away from the torpedo bomber in the early 1930s, not considering it an effective weapon. It was only revived with the TBD Devastator in 1937. Ranger was designed without any torpedo storage at all.

I can’t agree that the RN had no vision for the carrier. The split of responsibilities between RAF and RN made it more difficult than in the IJN and USN to realise that vision. And as the world leader in the 1920s and early 1930s there was no book to refer to.

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


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jul 5, 2022)

Why did Vought design the Corsair with such poor visibility and rearward cockpit placement?



http://www.oocities.org/capecanaveral/4676/images/f4u_cutaway_01.jpg



Why not put the fuel behind the pilot, move some of the supercharger gear behind the engine to behind or beneath the pilot? Yes we need to watch the CoG. It’s just such an odd layout by a designer who knew he was making a naval aircraft.


----------



## SaparotRob (Jul 5, 2022)

Didn't the original F4U have the cockpit more forward?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## EwenS (Jul 5, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> Didn't the original F4U have the cockpit more forward?


The whole fuselage was lengthened from the XF4U and the F4U-1. The cockpit moved aft and the engine forward so more fuel could be added, some of it displaced from the wings by increasing the armament.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## EwenS (Jul 5, 2022)

Admiral Beez said:


> Why did Vought design the Corsair with such poor visibility and rearward cockpit placement?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I’ve always understood that the RAF aversion interwar to rear fuel tanks was because they thought them more vulnerable to attack from behind, especially when they weren’t self sealing.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Jul 5, 2022)

EwenS said:


> I’ve always understood that the RAF aversion interwar to rear fuel tanks was because they thought them more vulnerable to attack from behind, especially when they weren’t self sealing.


The fuel tank in front of the pilot is at or near the center of gravity, therefore as fuel is used the handling characteristics do not change. A rear mounted tank does have adverse effects on handling. This is why, for example, the rear tank of the P-51 was to be used before the other tanks. Note that drop tanks are mounted to be close to the aircrafts CoG. 
The fuel tanks for the prototype Corsair were in the wings. The USN decided that synchronized guns were inferior to wing mounted and need to find space for the new armament arrangement. The displaced fuel was moved to the fuselage at the CoG so the pilot was moved back.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 5, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> Didn't the original F4U have the cockpit more forward?


You are correct.











There were about 800 changes between the XF4U-1 and the 1st production versions. 
The prototype did have a single .50 cal gun in each wing. There were also little bomb cells in each wing for dropping bombs on enemy bomber formations. 
Part of the problem with the fuel was that between initial design and prototype testing the Navy decided in might be kind of nice to have at least one fuel tank that was self-sealing,
(what pansies). Please note that the early production Corsairs did have fuel tanks in each wing of just under 60 US gallons in each wing. 
Now in the late 30s the US designers had a real fetish for integral tanks and Vought was part of that (Used them on the Kingfisher float plane) and if you want to fit standard fuel tanks you have to redo the wing structure. The storage that stayed in the wings were unprotected (overload tanks) although there was a CO2 system to help keep down the fumes. 
Between the change in armament ( two fuselage guns moved out to the wing and two more added) and the need for protected fuel storage the tank wound up in front of the cockpit with the cockpit moved back. The Fuselage tank did take up some of the space the cowl guns and ammo had occupied.


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Jul 5, 2022)

yulzari said:


> Bill, 1942 was the middle of the war. From the point of view of my father who had spent the three previous years in active service across three continents.



Did I say otherwise? They were already shooting down Ki-46 in 1942.

Please don't suggest I was trying to disparage your father, that is a stretch!


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jul 5, 2022)

I wonder how a Seafire would handle with aft fuel tanks. The added endurance would be welcome.






13's....


Concise Guide To Spitfire Wing Types



ww2aircraft.net


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jul 5, 2022)

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> You got a good point about the notion that scouts need radios to really work well, but even without a radio I would not go so far as to say 'useless'.
> 
> A6Ms routinely navigated over long distances in Pacific, from the Aleutians to Australia.
> 
> ...



My understanding is that the engine itself generated static to the extent that the radio on the Zero, while not absolutely useless, was so poor that it could not reliably transmit for the four hundred or so miles of a mission round-trip back to base. It's not that they didn't have long-range radio, it's that the generator(?) in the engine gave electrical interference.

Without reliable radio, using Zeroes for scouting not only diminished a carrier's CAP, it also was not reliable enough to provide early warning. If you've got to trap on the deck before delivering intel, that could obviously be too late in many instances.

Would a Zero in the place of _Tone_'s late scout have made a difference if its message was garbled by these known radio issues? The delayed _Tone_ scout-plane reported by radio "one carrier" at 0740. But if it had been a Zero with the crummy radio, would Nagumo have done the order-counterorder-disorder thing because he'd have no intel until the plane landed? Or would he have blithely launched a second strike at Midway with many of his fighters flying bomber-escort instead of CAP?

The world wonders.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## EwenS (Jul 5, 2022)

Admiral Beez said:


> I wonder how a Seafire would handle with aft fuel tanks. The added endurance would be welcome.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It was impossible to fit aft fuel tanks in the Merlin and early Griffon engined variants. Most of the naval modifications were to the aft fuselage. Catapult spools, arrester hook, fuselage strengthening etc. To maintain the aircraft within CG limits the Merlin versions had to add lead weights (c28lbs in the Mk.III) to the engine bearers.

Mike Crosley
“The Seafire, as opposed to the Spitfire, had the immense weight of an arrester hook added a long way aft of its centre of gravity , and the 28 pounds of solid lead added by the front engine bearers had not entirely corrected this tail heaviness. In the case of the Seafire III series, the aircraft was so unstable fore and aft that it should not have entered service in that condition.”

It was only with the fitting of the two stage Griffon in the Seafire 46/47 that any kind of aft fuel tankage became possible (32 gals).

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## EwenS (Jul 6, 2022)

Shortround6 said:


> The strike aircraft (Avengers and dive bombers) often had radar using the Yagi aerials. Since they had somebody besides the pilot as a radar operator they were probably a better bet for "scout duty" than using single seat night fighters were were not common.


ASB was the early search radar set in USN Carrier aircraft. This was similar to the British ASV.II.

Later the centimetric AN/APS-4 (ASH) was carried in a detachable underwing pod. This came to Britain from 1944 where it was used firstly in night fighters (as AI Mk.XV built into the nose of Mosquitos or prodded on Fireflies) or as an ASV set on the likes of the Firefly FR.I.

Information on US radars (ship and air borne) here in this 1943 document





US Radar: Operational Characteristics of Radar Classified by Tactical Application


WASHINGTON, D. C. The publication




www.history.navy.mil


----------



## EwenS (Jul 6, 2022)

Shortround6 said:


> Fairey got an order for 127 Fulmars in mid 1938. It took until Jan 1940 for the first one to fly.


Actually that is not bad considering the work that needed done.

The second P4/34 Prototype, K7555, flew on 19 April 1937, was tested by the A&AEE in Sept/Oct and then went back to Fairey to become the mock up for the Fulmar (shortened wings smaller ailerons) before going back to the A&AEE in April 1938. But that was not the final aircraft. In fact there was no prototype Fulmar. A considerable amount of work remained to be done to produce the navalised fighter. The Air Ministry issued the new spec O.8/38 for the Fulmar on 24 April 1938 which specified delivery of the first aircraft in Sept 1939. Fairey presented its proposal in May and the order for 127 was immediately placed. The peacetime production rate was planned to build up to only about 20 aircraft per month.

The factory at Heaton Chapel where it was to be produced was fully engaged in making Battles throughout this period. And the Fairey design team were also working on the Albacore at this time, with work on the Barracuda just beginning as well. So some slippage was almost inevitable. And then all the new tooling had to be procured.

By way of comparison it took Westland 12 months from receiving a contract in July 1940 to delivering its first Spitfire in July 1941. Blackburn took 12 months to take over production of the Swordfish from the go ahead in Nov 1939 to delivery of the first aircraft on 1 Dec 1940. Neither involved any redesign. Blackburn even got the necessary jigs from Fairey to equip its new shadow factory where they were being built.

Enough were produced to allow the first squadron to convert in June 1940 with 3 more in existence by the end of the year.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Jul 6, 2022)

EwenS said:


> I don’t believe it was a shortage of night fighter and strike aircraft. From 1944 the USN CV Air groups all had a night fighter flight attached for defensive purposes especially around dawn and dusk.
> 
> But from Aug 1944 they started to deploy entire night air groups. First on the CVL Independence, then Enterprise, Saratoga and finally the Bon Homme Richard. Those groups fulfilled both offensive and defensive roles with F6F-5(N) and TBM Radar equipped aircraft of various models. A CVEG(N) was also being readied for service as the war ended.
> 
> Edit:- USMC squadrons also flew night fighter F6F from various Pacific shore bases. As the war was ending the first F7F night fighters were just arriving on Okinawa.


The following website provides an excellent history of USN night fighter development with respect to radar








The Night Fighters - Chapter 11 of Radar and the Fighter Directors







ethw.org




Note the tiny size of the cockpit display. 
As a practical matter single seat aircraft were not suitable for search missions. Fighters were under the direction of a shipboard controller with the onboard radar used at relatively short distances. Radar equipped TBMs and SB2Cs were used for long range search missions. Two or more crew members results in a much more efficient operation

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## EwenS (Jul 6, 2022)

Reluctant Poster said:


> The following website provides an excellent history of USN night fighter development with respect to radar
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Report on operations by CVG(N)-90 on the Enterprise along with histories of her rwo squadrons, between Dec 1944 & May 1945





Night Operations Analysis


Analysis of Night Operations Aboard USS Enterprise CV-6



www.cv6.org









VF(N)-90 Squadron History


The history of Night Fighting Squadron 90: a pioneering US Navy night and all-weather squadron, 1944-1945.



www.cv6.org









VT(N)-90 Squadron History


The history of Night Torpedo Squadron 90: one the first US Navy squadrons engaged in night and all-weather carrier operations, 1944-1945.



www.cv6.org





History of Carrier Division Seven - First Night Carrier Division





Carrier Division Seven


History of Carrier Division Seven: The Navy's first night carrier division.



www.cv6.org





Note the variety of missions being flown in daylight, bad weather and at night by the fighters. These included CAPs over the carrier groups, bombardment groups and target areas and intruder sorties over enemy territories.

The RN converted the light carrier Ocean as a night carrier between Aug & Nov 1945 immediately following her completion. She then embarked 892 squadron with Hellcat NF.II (F6F-5(N)) and 1792 with Firefly NF.I. Until April 1946 they flew trials to determine which made the best night fighter. The conclusion was that while the APS-6 radar in the structural wing pod on the Hellcat was better as an air-intercept set, the AN/APS-4 in the Firefly could also be used for surface search and could be fitted to any Firefly easily simply by moving the black boxes between airframes. In addition having an observer to work the radar was a safer option in bad weather, leaving the pilot free to concentrate on flying the aircraft. That led to the addition of so called "Black" night fighter flights to all Firefly squadrons up until the outbreak of the Korean War.

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


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Jul 6, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> My understanding is that the engine itself generated static to the extent that the radio on the Zero, while not absolutely useless, was so poor that it could not reliably transmit for the four hundred or so miles of a mission round-trip back to base. It's not that they didn't have long-range radio, it's that the generator(?) in the engine gave electrical interference.
> 
> 
> Without reliable radio, using Zeroes for scouting not only diminished a carrier's CAP, it also was not reliable enough to provide early warning. If you've got to trap on the deck before delivering intel, that could obviously be too late in many instances.
> ...



Even with static, you could still deliver a simple morse message. I'd say send a zero out in parallel along all search axis, all they need to send back is "Who I am" "On course" "Found something" 

The real question is did they ever use them in that way, well they apparently did use both A6M and Ki43 on recon flights from ground bases around New Guinea in 1942 and 43. But they were still (successfully) using G4M fairly late too, and quite often fighters escorting a bomber on such missions which solves the radio problem.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jul 6, 2022)

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> Even with static, you could still deliver a simple morse message. I'd say send a zero out in parallel along all search axis, all they need to send back is "Who I am" "On course" "Found something"



Static can interfere with morse stuff too. Was that a dit or a dah? Can't always tell if the freq is washed out by white noise. And short messages like that do little or nothiing for recon. Remember the _Tone_ plane's first message made no mention of ship types, just that ten ships were spotted. That paralyzed Nagumo for a few minutes while he waited to learn if American carriers were present.

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


----------



## SaparotRob (Jul 6, 2022)

Even Morse didn’t work all the time. The one midget sub that got into Pearl Harbor tried to signal it had attacked. The signal was garbled. The operator may have hit the wrong key. Operator error happened. There’s probably a lot going on in a single seat.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 6, 2022)

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> Even with static, you could still deliver a simple morse message.


If you have any type of shielding issue on the aircraft, the radio signal isn't going far, be it voice or Morse Code.

_Insufficient shielding of the ignition system of the aircraft caused interference with reception of signals to a great degree, as did static charges generated by the passage of the airframe through the atmosphere. It seems that there were very few officers at fighter group level who were familiar with radio systems or who cared to conduct effective programs to maintain them. The resulting poor performance quickly led fighter pilots to cease using the radios and resort to the old visual methods. In the case of some land-based groups, they removed all radio equipment to enhance the performance of the planes. *Ship-based planes needed to retain their radios for navigation and homing purposes.*

The radio systems installed in the early A6M2 and A6M3 variants of the Zero were the Type 96 ku (aviation) Model 1 voice/telegraph system and the Type 1 ku Model 3 Radio Compass or Radio Direction Finder. The Type 1-3 was the standard RDF unit for most carrier-borne IJN aircraft. The Type 96-1 system was previously used in the A5M4 fighter series. The Type 96-1 system consisted of three components, all of which were installed in the cockpit. The transmitter and receiver were separate units that were placed low on the right side of the cockpit. They were hung in the standard shock mount that consisted of frames above and below the radio which had bungee cords secured to them. The bungees were looped around spools mounted on the radio casing. The suspended radio was protected from shocks by the flexibility of the cords. _

If there were little or no radio communication available when returning to a carrier, more than likely light signals were used prompting which aircraft was cleared to land.



Radio Systems in the Early A6M Zero

Reactions: Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jul 6, 2022)

I wondered how those vacuum tube radios dealt with shock.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 6, 2022)

Ignition system shielding can be a huge problem on recip aircraft. The other issue is bleed over from strobe lighting

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Jul 6, 2022)

Very interesting article, thanks for posting.

From this...

_"The type 96-1 operated in the frequency range of 3.8 to 5.8 megahertz. This is the lower end of the High Frequency or Short Wave band. Quartz crystal oscillators controlled frequencies. Power of the transmitter was 8 to 10 watts in voice mode and 30 watts in telegraph mode, called CW for 'continuous wave'. In 'At Dawn We Slept' Gordon Prange relates that one of the problems encountered in the IJN's preparation for Pearl Harbor was that they had never operated fighters farther than 90 miles from their carriers. 50 miles was the practical limit of utility of the voice radios under optimum conditions. Since the fighters would be venturing around 250 miles outbound on the mission it was necessary to initiate a training program in the use of the longer ranged telegraph code communication. It may be seen in the photo that Hirano's A6M2 did not have a code key installed and his transmitter is set to voice function. It seems that not all fighter pilots were trained in code transmission. Perhaps only unit leaders were supplied with the necessary equipment. The receiver circuit was a superheterodyne type. Total weight of the system was 38 pounds."_

And some other parts of the article, it sounds like the radios weren't that bad, problems were somewhat intermittent but the biggest issue was actually training. Apparently A6Ms did carry morse radio sets and could and did communicate with aircraft carriers, at a distance of 250 miles. I think this definitely puts them over the line from "useless" and well into "useful".

It seems that training and maintenance, and eventually production quality were all significant problems though and as we know by Midway they seem to have been mainly relying on the flying boats and cruiser launched seaplane scouts. I'd love to know if they were ever using zeros as armed recon later in the war.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 6, 2022)

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> And some other parts of the article, it sounds like the radios weren't that bad, problems were somewhat intermittent but the biggest issue was actually training. Apparently A6Ms did carry morse radio sets and could and did communicate with aircraft carriers, at a distance of 250 miles. I think this definitely puts them over the line from "useless" and well into "useful".


Only if they worked - and from that same article it seems like they didn't most of the time. It's been well documented that maintenance and logistics were a major issue for the Japanese through out the war. Interchangeability on many components was almost non-existent.


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Jul 6, 2022)

Well yeah, that - especially the lack of interchangeability, was definitely a huge problem. I think that was also an issue with some Allied aircraft in the early years of the war. 

But "_they had a lot of reliability problems_ _and many pilots were not trained to use radios_" is not quite the same as "_they had no radios / radios didn't work at all, therefore they were useless as scouts_" since clearly they did have radio communication for Pearl Harbor, 250 miles away from their carriers, and in many other long range fighter sweeps and strike escorts they routinely conducted after Dec 1941.

To be useless as scouts they almost had to be useless as long range fighters, but clearly they were not. It's also clear that they did have a lot of problems with radios as well as their newer engines and all kinds of other machinery, though they managed to get enough of it working to still pose a substantial threat through 1943 at least.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 6, 2022)

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> To be useless as scouts they almost had to be useless as long range fighters, but clearly they were not.


They were often matched up with one or 2 multi seat aircraft to provide communications/navigation support. 
This was not unique to the Japanese. Many of the fighter ferry flights to Malta had one or two multi seat aircraft providing the same support to the single seat fighters. 
It might have been done by US fighter units on occasion. 
If you are sending out planes on scout/ recon/ search missions you want a high likelihood that EACH plane will be able to succeed in it's function. 

the passage is a also a bit selective. 

_. Power of the transmitter was *8 to 10 watts in voice* mode and *30 watts in telegraph mode*, called CW for 'continuous wave'. In 'At Dawn We Slept' Gordon Prange relates that one of the problems encountered in the IJN's preparation for Pearl Harbor was that they had never operated fighters farther than 90 miles from their carriers. *50 miles was the practical limit* of utility of the voice radios under optimum conditions. Since the fighters would be venturing around *250 miles outbound on the mission*_

rule of thumb was telegraph mode was worth 3 times what voice mode was. 
50 miles was the practical limit. Not average limit, or sure limit but not max limit either. It would allow for some repeated attempts. It was also not the limit in either optimum conditions or worsts conditions. But the Japanese were going to try for 5 times the range, not 3 times. 

Are the fighters supposed to report back to the carrier or did the multi seat aircraft relay the messages? 
Was the greater range capacity (which is not spelled out in the passage) to help inure that aircraft that had been separated in combat had a larger margin of error to contact the carriers on the return flight?
Please note that the passage does say they operated, at least once, about 40 miles beyond radio range. They may not have been planning for full radio coverage. Just a larger are of the flight to be in contact to provide guidance for off course aircraft.

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


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 6, 2022)

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> Well yeah, that - especially the lack of interchangeability, was definitely a huge problem. I think that was also an issue with some Allied aircraft in the early years of the war.


Yes and no - the Brits had some issues, the US not so many and if anything interchangeability was quite good. 


Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> But "_they had a lot of reliability problems_ _and many pilots were not trained to use radios_" is not quite the same as "_they had no radios / radios didn't work at all, therefore they were useless as scouts_" since clearly they did have radio communication for Pearl Harbor, 250 miles away from their carriers, and in many other long range fighter sweeps and strike escorts they routinely conducted after Dec 1941.


They did, but look what most units did with their radios.


Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> To be useless as scouts they almost had to be useless as long range fighters, but clearly they were not. It's also clear that they did have a lot of problems with radios as well as their newer engines and all kinds of other machinery,


Scouting and conducting a specific military operation are two different animals. On a scouting mission you're gathering intelligence and looking for targets of opportunity. A strike will have a plan, briefings, etc. With all that said, if I was running a fighter unit, be it JAAF or IJN, I would not want to waste a fully functional fighter on a scouting mission, I'd send something specifically designed for that task.


Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> though they managed to get enough of it working to still pose a substantial threat through 1943 at least.


They did but by early/ mid 1943, the writing was on the wall for both IJN and JAAF units

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Jul 6, 2022)

Shortround6 said:


> They were often matched up with one or 2 multi seat aircraft to provide communications/navigation support.
> This was not unique to the Japanese. Many of the fighter ferry flights to Malta had one or two multi seat aircraft providing the same support to the single seat fighters.
> It might have been done by US fighter units on occasion.
> If you are sending out planes on scout/ recon/ search missions you want a high likelihood that EACH plane will be able to succeed in it's function.



yes, sending combined flights with a navigation aircraft with single seat fighters was very common in many if not all Theaters. I know for sure it was done all over the Med, in the South Pacific, in China, and in Alaska. This was one of the many roles where the Hudson and later Ventura really shined. For whatever reason they were deemed optimal in this role and they routinely accompanied flights of P-40s, F4Fs, P-38s, Spitfire VIII, or Corsairs and other single engined types (including SBDs sometimes). Beaufighters were also used this way sometimes. 

There is a kind of darkly amusing episode involving Clive Caldwell, in the Pacific he was with a small flight of (two or three IIRC) Spitfire Mk VIII, and a Beaufighter was flying with them, which he assumed was doing navigation. About an hour into the flight they hit weather and he was informed by the Beaufighter crew that they had not been navigating and had no idea where they were. He got so angry he charged his guns and moved into position to shoot down the Beaufighter. Lucky for everybody they soon sighted an island and found a place to land. I imagine things were a little tense on base after that.

On the Japanese side, recon flights of say, a half dozen A6Ms and one G4M were also very common in New Guinea according to the operational histories I've been reading recently. The Japanese bomber types, by the end of 1942, were becoming more vulnerable (although not as quickly or as thoroughly as you might think) and were increasingly deemed as needing escort, though they still went out by themselves too. Sometimes one flight of six or nine A6M were sent out and could be summoned via radio (apparently) to assist patrolling G4M, H6K or other types.

Combining multiple types of aircraft in a single patrol or scout mission was not unusual by any means. So long as they could fly at the same altitude and speed. Only a few types routinely went out on solo missions, for the Japanese that would be the Ki-46 and some of the older types. I know they were using the Ki-15 this way as well for a while in the Pacific. For the Americans pretty much flying boats, cruiser launched seaplanes and land based bombers (Hudson, B-17, B-24, B-25) were more typical. Sometimes P-40s and Wildcats went out solo as well. The AVG had a P-43 they used as a recon plane. The Brits had the Beaufighter, but they also used recon Spits and Hurrcanes for Tac-R missions. Loss rates were very high!



Shortround6 said:


> the passage is a also a bit selective.
> 
> _. Power of the transmitter was *8 to 10 watts in voice* mode and *30 watts in telegraph mode*, called CW for 'continuous wave'. In 'At Dawn We Slept' Gordon Prange relates that one of the problems encountered in the IJN's preparation for Pearl Harbor was that they had never operated fighters farther than 90 miles from their carriers. *50 miles was the practical limit* of utility of the voice radios under optimum conditions. Since the fighters would be venturing around *250 miles outbound on the mission*_
> 
> ...



I think they did it, and that was definitely not the only time. I certainly wasn't being selective, it points out the obvious and you were wrong, which probably rubs you the wrong way. That ain't my problem.



Shortround6 said:


> Are the fighters supposed to report back to the carrier or did the multi seat aircraft relay the messages?
> Was the greater range capacity (which is not spelled out in the passage) to help inure that aircraft that had been separated in combat had a larger margin of error to contact the carriers on the return flight?
> Please note that the passage does say they operated, at least once, about 40 miles beyond radio range. They may not have been planning for full radio coverage. Just a larger are of the flight to be in contact to provide guidance for off course aircraft.


I think they did use radios for navigation / direction finding without a doubt. But it's also pretty clear they were communicating as well. And frankly, sending a short morse message isn't as challenging on a technical level as coordinating voice communication among maneuvering fighters, IMO.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Jul 6, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Yes and no - the Brits had some issues, the US not so many and if anything interchangeability was quite good.


yes that's what I meant. The Soviets had problems with this too.



FLYBOYJ said:


> They did, but look what most units did with their radios.



It's not clear to me how many, my understanding is that by mid-war a lot of IJN units anyway were using them.



FLYBOYJ said:


> Scouting and conducting a specific military operation are two different animals. On a scouting mission you're gathering intelligence and looking for targets of opportunity. A strike will have a plan, briefings, etc. With all that said, if I was running a fighter unit, be it JAAF or IJN, I would not want to waste a fully functional fighter on a scouting mission, I'd send something specifically designed for that task.



Well that was part of the (both planned and actual) mission of the Fulmar. And the USN certainly sent both bombers and fighters out to scout and even on "ASW" (sub-search) missions during the war. The SBD was designated as a 'scout-bomber' and some of the USN SBD squadrons were specifically designated as 'Scout-Bomber' units. Those were the ones which got some fighter training. 

Whether or not to use a fighter on recon is in part a matter of balancing tactical advantages vs. strategic / operational. If you are in a carrier knowing where they enemy ships are may be more important than having one more fighter on CAP or escort. 

That said, I certainly wouldn't sent _a lot_ of fighters (or bombers) on scouting missions, but it depends what other options you have. Up to a certain point, maybe you can rely on the E-13s or the OS2U and ground based PBYs and so on. But the OS2U's didn't have such a great range, they were slow (as were the PBYs) and may not be available in numbers where you are.



FLYBOYJ said:


> They did but by early/ mid 1943, the writing was on the wall for both IJN and JAAF units



Agreed, though it took a while. They didn't disappear or lose their sting overnight.


----------



## MikeMeech (Jul 6, 2022)

Hi
The book 'Sunburst' by Mark R Peattie has some information on JNAF Recce and radio, extracts below:























Voice radio was used during WW1, the French tried it out over Verdun during 1916 (with a few problems) and the British used it over the battlefield during 1918 (air to ground) and also in the British air defence system at home.

Mike

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


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Jul 6, 2022)

Outstanding. That really paints a nuanced picture.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 6, 2022)

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> It's not clear to me how many, my understanding is that by mid-war a lot of IJN units anyway were using them.


Again yes and no - many units were discarding their radios, mentioned by Saburō Sakai many times


Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> Well that was part of the (both planned and actual) mission of the Fulmar. And the USN certainly sent both bombers and fighters out to scout and even on "ASW" (sub-search) missions during the war. The SBD was designated as a 'scout-bomber' and some of the USN SBD squadrons were specifically designated as 'Scout-Bomber' units. Those were the ones which got some fighter training.


OK if you're comparing the allies to the Japanese


Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> Whether or not to use a fighter on recon is in part a matter of balancing tactical advantages vs. strategic / operational. If you are in a carrier knowing where they enemy ships are may be more important than having one more fighter on CAP or escort.


Depends on the situation. Again, there were IJN scout planes designed specifically for this


Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> That said, *I certainly wouldn't sent a lot of fighters (or bombers) on scouting missions, but it depends what other options you have.* Up to a certain point, maybe you can rely on the E-13s or the OS2U and ground based PBYs and so on. But the OS2U's didn't have such a great range, they were slow (as were the PBYs) and may not be available in numbers where you are.


Up front yes (my initial point) but on the other side if you don't have that luxury, you use what's available


Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> Agreed, though it took a while. They didn't disappear or lose their sting overnight.


Agree


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Jul 6, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> My understanding is that the engine itself generated static to the extent that the radio on the Zero, while not absolutely useless, was so poor that it could not reliably transmit for the four hundred or so miles of a mission round-trip back to base. It's not that they didn't have long-range radio, it's that the generator(?) in the engine gave electrical interference.
> 
> 
> Without reliable radio, using Zeroes for scouting not only diminished a carrier's CAP, it also was not reliable enough to provide early warning. If you've got to trap on the deck before delivering intel, that could obviously be too late in many instances.
> ...


Note that radio interference wasn't limited to the Japanese. According to Freeman in "The Mighty Eighth War Manual" in his discussion of the early P-47.
"The ignition system of the engine, poorly designed from the standpoint of interference with radio equipment was found to have some 36 leaks and the unfiltered booster coil allowed a leak back into the battery system. After the leaks had been located, special shielding was designed as a remedy............... a new ignition system was designed in the US and incorporated in subsequent P-47s."
Note that this was in 1943 with much better radio equipment (VHF) than the Japanese had.

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


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Jul 6, 2022)

EwenS said:


> Report on operations by CVG(N)-90 on the Enterprise along with histories of her rwo squadrons, between Dec 1944 & May 1945
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Friedman in "Fighters Over the Fleet"
"As evaluated by May 1945, the F7F-2N was found to be superior to the F6F-5N, at that time the standard carrier night fighter, both in overall performance and in that the radar operator was able to reduce interception time substantially."

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Jul 6, 2022)

MikeMeech said:


> Voice radio was used during WW1, the French tried it out over Verdun during 1916 (with a few problems) and the British used it over the battlefield during 1918 (air to ground) and also in the British air defence system at home.



As an historic aside from this excellent conversation, the RNAS also used it during the Dardanelles campaign for artillery spotting in early 1915. The seaplane tender Ark Royal had one radio set that used to be loaded aboard each aircraft before each sortie. This was the first time that aerial spotting using aeroplanes equipped with radio was used to plot the fall of naval gunfire against land targets - the primary purpose of sending aircraft into the Dardanelles in the first place. The balloon tender HMS Manica also had radio contact with its tethered balloon whilst gunfire spotting. This was also the first time that aerial photographic reconnaissance was used to verify fall of shot of naval weapons pre and post attack, narrowly missing the first use of aerial photography for reconnaissance over a battlefield in the Great War by a matter of weeks. This was also the RNAS under Charles Rumney Sampson, but using French cameras and expertise.

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


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jul 6, 2022)

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> Very interesting article, thanks for posting.
> 
> From this...
> 
> ...



Drachinifel has a long and informative video on the Zero, wherein his interviewee, Justin, goes into the radio issues with the Zero. One thing he notes is that the radio issues were more prevalent in the equatorial region than up north around the Hawaiian Islands. He also notes that even the Allies suffered radio issues in the Solomon Islands, seeing a reduction in range to (according to him) around 80 km range for the Wildcats radio when normally they would have had significantly longer range.

He goes into the radio issues starting a 1:46:30 in this video, but the entire thing is well worth the watch if you've got a few spare hours:

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


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jul 6, 2022)

Shortround6 said:


> It might have been done by US fighter units on occasion.



The USN initially paired their nightfighters with a TBF/TBM carrying radar which would vector two non-radar Hellcats onto targets. Indeed, Butch O'Hare disappeared on such a mission in 1943. Of course, they transitioned to nightfighter variants of both the Hellcat and the Corsair well before the war ended. 

Also, P-38s flying direct to ETO usually used a heavy bomber to provide nav support.

Not sure if any of these buddy missions involved the issue of radio communications directly, though.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Jul 6, 2022)

One thing I remember about radios in the Med, one of the pilots, I think it was a Canadian Ace, "stocky" Edwards, mentioned that the US vs. UK planes (both P-40s) had different radios, and that the British one was a HF set with knobs for tuning, while the American one was a VHF and it had preset buttons like in a late 20th Century car radio. He said the latter was much faster for changing bands, and described an incident where they were trying to warn a guy of a bounce and he never reacted, and they figured he was fiddling with dials.


----------



## Macandy (Jul 6, 2022)

Koopernic said:


> The Corsair nor Hellcat never encountered a Fw 190 nor Me 109G



Lucky for the Fw 190 and Me 109 pilots who'd have had a quick ride to Valhalla at the hands of a fighter that was faster, outclimbed them and could turn inside them with ease.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jul 6, 2022)

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> One thing I remember about radios in the Med, one of the pilots, I think it was a Canadian Ace, "stocky" Edwards, mentioned that the US vs. UK planes (both P-40s) had different radios, and that the British one was a HF set with knobs for tuning, while the American one was a VHF and it had preset buttons like in a late 20th Century car radio. He said the latter was much faster for changing bands, and described an incident where they were trying to warn a guy of a bounce and he never reacted, and they figured he was fiddling with dials.



I think that was the difference between analog, manually-tuned radios, and crystal sets which operated on only a few frequencies but which had much better freq-tracking fidelity.

So far as I know (what little that is!) the Japanese only used crystal radio-sets through the war, but I'm definitely open to correction in that regard.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 6, 2022)

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> One thing I remember about radios in the Med, one of the pilots, I think it was a Canadian Ace, "stocky" Edwards, mentioned that the US vs. UK planes (both P-40s) had different radios, and that the British one was a HF set with knobs for tuning, while *the American one was a VHF and it had preset buttons like in a late 20th Century car radio*. He said the latter was much faster for changing bands, and described an incident where they were trying to warn a guy of a bounce and he never reacted, and they figured he was fiddling with dials.


Yes - US VHF radios had 3 or more preset frequencies IIRC.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Macandy (Jul 6, 2022)

RCAFson said:


> The Seafires were operating off ~15 knot CVE's in essentially windless conditions, consequently their landing speeds were excessive but any other carrier fighter would have suffered under similar conditions.
> 
> Additionally, all Seafires from the II variant onward were purpose built as carrier aircraft, extensively modified from the basic Mk V, and were not converted Mk Vs.



All Seafires until the very last marks with contra props suffered from an intractable problem, they were very prone 'pecking the deck' when trapping back aboard, busting the engine and bulkhead - winning themselves a push over the side and a swim.
Some Squadrons lost 50% of their Seafires to deck landing accidents and none to enemy action.

In all respects, it was a very poor carrier aircraft, unlike Grummans Hellcat, arguably the best 'package'. Fast enough, tough, well armed, highly manoeuvrable and with docile deck behaviour.
Yes, the Corsair was a better fighter, but it was also a bit of a beast - and while a terror to the enemy in the hands of a pilot who could master it, it was as big terror to those that didn't. It didn't take prisoners - 'Bent winged bastard' or 'Ensign eliminator' depending wether your were FAA or USN

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 6, 2022)

SCR-522 - RadioNerds







radionerds.com


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Jul 6, 2022)

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> One thing I remember about radios in the Med, one of the pilots, I think it was a Canadian Ace, "stocky" Edwards, mentioned that the US vs. UK planes (both P-40s) had different radios, and that the British one was a HF set with knobs for tuning, while the American one was a VHF and it had preset buttons like in a late 20th Century car radio. He said the latter was much faster for changing bands, and described an incident where they were trying to warn a guy of a bounce and he never reacted, and they figured he was fiddling with dials.


You have it backwards. The British transitioned to VHF before the Americans did. Late production Spitfire I and IIs were equipped with TR1133 VHF radios. Friedman writes in "Fighters Over the Fleet" for Operation Pedestal in August 1942 the RN had VHF sets: "The fighters and controllers had VHF voice radio (R/T) which the US Navy would not have in quantity for *another year*." My emphasis in bold.

In fact, according to Freeman in "The Mighty Eighth War Manual" the US VHS set was based was based on the British one. "A very high frequency set based on the British TR1143 and interchangeable with it, the SCR-522-A was the principal operation set for verbal communications with both 8th Air force bombers and fighters."

More info on British VHF radios


SpitfireSpares.com - warbird Reference



Here's a photo of a Tomahawk fitted with a TR1133








THE SHARK HAS LANDED! Curtiss Tomahawk 112sqn RAF







forum.largescaleplanes.com

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


----------



## PAT303 (Jul 6, 2022)

EwenS said:


> It was impossible to fit aft fuel tanks in the Merlin and early Griffon engined variants.


They could have added 25G tanks in the leading edges, there's lots of room.


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Jul 6, 2022)

Macandy said:


> Lucky for the Fw 190 and Me 109 pilots who'd have had a quick ride to Valhalla at the hands of a fighter that was faster, outclimbed them and could turn inside them with ease.



I'm pretty sure F6 at least did encounter Bf 109Gs and handled them, though the excuse is that the (German) pilots were green.


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Jul 6, 2022)

Reluctant Poster said:


> You have it backwards. The British transitioned to VHF before the Americans did. Late production Spitfire I and IIs were equipped with TR1133 VHF radios. Friedman writes in "Fighters Over the Fleet" for Operation Pedestal in August 1942 the RN had VHF sets: "The fighters and controllers had VHF voice radio (R/T) which the US Navy would not have in quantity for *another year*." My emphasis in bold.
> 
> In fact, according to Freeman in "The Mighty Eighth War Manual" the US VHS set was based was based on the British one. "A very high frequency set based on the British TR1143 and interchangeable with it, the SCR-522-A was the principal operation set for verbal communications with both 8th Air force bombers and fighters."
> 
> ...



I'll see if I can find the quote, both aircraft were P-40s actually, in the Med. It was either Edwards or Gibbes.

(EDIT: I wasn't trying to crap on the British radios, just relating an anecdote. For all I know both sets were made by the Americans. Anyway I'll find the quote)


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Jul 6, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> I think that was the difference between analog, manually-tuned radios, and crystal sets which operated on only a few frequencies but which had much better freq-tracking fidelity.
> 
> So far as I know (what little that is!) the Japanese only used crystal radio-sets through the war, but I'm definitely open to correction in that regard.



That is what that article was saying as well.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jul 6, 2022)

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> That is what that article was saying as well.



I was relieved, reading it. that my old-ass memory was working, for a change.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Jul 6, 2022)

Macandy said:


> All Seafires until the very last marks with contra props suffered from an intractable problem, they were very prone 'pecking the deck' when trapping back aboard, busting the engine and bulkhead - winning themselves a push over the side and a swim.
> Some Squadrons lost 50% of their Seafires to deck landing accidents and none to enemy action.
> 
> In all respects, it was a very poor carrier aircraft, unlike Grummans Hellcat, arguably the best 'package'. Fast enough, tough, well armed, highly manoeuvrable and with docile deck behaviour.
> Yes, the Corsair was a better fighter, but it was also a bit of a beast - and while a terror to the enemy in the hands of a pilot who could master it, it was as big terror to those that didn't. It didn't take prisoners - 'Bent winged bastard' or 'Ensign eliminator' depending wether your were FAA or USN



I've had the good fortune to talk to a couple of dozen WW2 fighter pilots over the years. Generally, they liked the plane(s) they flew, but when you try to get them talking about the combat performance etc., what they usually talked about was things like landing and takeoff, how comfortable they were to sit in and so on.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Jul 6, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> I was relieved, reading it. that my old-ass memory was working, for a change.



I know that feeling

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


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Jul 6, 2022)

Found it. It was an interview with 10 victory Ace Bobby Gibbes. The interview is here
http://www.3squadron.org.au/subpages/AWMGibbes.htm

This is the excerpt in question:

"Well, the Yanks put in a squadron when they first came into the war. They attached a squadron to our wing, 239 Wing, named 66 Squadron, commanded by an American major called 'Buck' Bilby. I happened to be leading the wing on this occasion and before taking off I had a chat to Buck and I said, 'Now, you are flying the same formation as we are, aren't you, Buck?'. And when he told me the formation he was flying I said, 'Well, that formation has gone out with the blades. If you're not flying our Formation, you're not coming'. And that caused a bit of a furore when the Yankee squadron was forced to remain on the ground and I led off with the wing. Later, of course, I was backed up by my seniors and the Americans had to practice our formation. *At that juncture we had very bad radio communication. We had HF, we didn't have VHF in those days. *And a lot of our pilots would be shot down because of radio breakdown. You'd see an attack coming in, you'd try and warn them but with the radio being ineffective they often were shot down. If they'd heard on the radio, of course, they wouldn't have been. We evolved a formation of every pilot in the squadron, even including the leader of the squadron, all weaving. We flew in pairs but weaving backwards and forwards behind each other so that this way you were able to cover the whole sky ahead, above, below and behind. And each one was keeping a pretty strict look out. The Americans.... The Germans, by the way, called us the 'Waltzing Matildas'. It was a very effective formation. If an attack came in from behind, we'd scream out - the lead would - 'Duck!'. We'd all do 180 degree turn and when the German attack would come in, or the Italian attack would come in, we'd all be facing them, and this was very effective. The Americans eventually did adopt our formation while they flew with us...."

I don't see anything about the VHF and the buttons, I must have read that somewhere else.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## EwenS (Jul 7, 2022)

Found this regarding RAF radios around the start of the war.

“The basic set for all bombers was the TRF General Purose radio, consisting of the R1082 and T1083. This set operated at low frequency, so large range, and was intended for communication of the individual a/c with their base. With a rotatable antenna it could be used for direction finding. As far as I know this set was NOT used for a/c to a/c communication.
For fighters there was the TR9D, consisting of the R1120 and T1119, operating at 4.4-6 MHz. Range of this set was very poor, and was useless a few km away from the air field. So it could then only be used for a/c to a/c communication.
Around May new fighter a/c were started to be equiped with the much better TR1133 set. I expect that not many units in France already used this radio, probably only home based Fighter Command a/c.
Coastal Command used a simplified version of the TR9D, the TR9J
The TR9F was installed into bombers probably from the end of 1940, adding a 2nd channel and possibly a/c to a/ccommunication. So it is pretty impossible to find TR9F in May 1940 a/c.”

TR9D was an HF set and TR1133 a VHF set. Being dimensionally identical they could be easily swapped.

By the time of Dunkirk 8 Fighter Command squadrons (4 Spitfire & 4 Hurricane) had been given TR1133, but reverted to TR9D. This was to maintain uniformity of communications across the Command. From “Air Power and the Evacuation of Dunkirk” the TR9D was deficient in range and signal clarity and was prone to atmospheric and electromagnetic interference. The other problem was ensuring that all squadrons in the area had the correct crystals. Each Group apparently operated on its own frequency. Movement between Groups at short notice could result in the inability to communicate with other units.

Overseas the HF TR9D continued for much longer. I’ve read that refitting it was one of the topicalisation modifications required for Spitfire V. The first Spitfires didn’t leave the U.K. until Feb 1942.



http://air-ministry.uk/TR9D.pdf



This may also be of interest. Someone researching BoB communications for a war game.


The Burning Blue, Research page 3

Reactions: Informative Informative:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Jul 7, 2022)

My understanding is that in this case, which would have been 1942 in North Africa, the regular pilots had short range radios used for communication within the squadron, and the squadron leaders has either a different radio or two radios, and they would switch bands from the squadron to the base, and / or sometimes to the other units they were flying with (bombers they were escorting etc.)


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 7, 2022)

US army fighters could have 3 "radios".

common was the SCR-522





Four frequencies selectable by push buttons/

Also common was the SCR-274 "radio" which was actually up to 5 units in one. Usually two sperate transmitters and 3 receivers. There was a bewildering set of possible combinations. 
Selector switch selected between the different radios in the rack.





There was also the IFF "radio" with demolition charge. 

Please note the SCR-522 had 6 watts of power and the SCR-274 had 40 watts CW and 20 watts voice.

Also note that the SCR-522 frequencies were very high and often restricted the range to line of sight. 
The P-40F manual gives some general guide lines. 

Radios changed a lot during the war, there were newer models and sometimes you had old radios with new designations. The SCR-274 became the AN/ARC-5 in the navy and since it was a modular construction set it depended on the different types of transmitters and receivers for its actual characteristics.
In fighters the SCR-274 was preset and not tunable in flight. or not tunable very much. In multi seat aircraft there dials that could be adjusted/tuned and with enough time crystals could be changed in flight. Large aircraft could use larger/more powerful transmitters and they could use different antennas. Often they used trailing antennae's of around 100ft in length.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## MikeMeech (Jul 7, 2022)

nuuumannn said:


> As an historic aside from this excellent conversation, the RNAS also used it during the Dardanelles campaign for artillery spotting in early 1915. The seaplane tender Ark Royal had one radio set that used to be loaded aboard each aircraft before each sortie. This was the first time that aerial spotting using aeroplanes equipped with radio was used to plot the fall of naval gunfire against land targets - the primary purpose of sending aircraft into the Dardanelles in the first place. The balloon tender HMS Manica also had radio contact with its tethered balloon whilst gunfire spotting. This was also the first time that aerial photographic reconnaissance was used to verify fall of shot of naval weapons pre and post attack, narrowly missing the first use of aerial photography for reconnaissance over a battlefield in the Great War by a matter of weeks. This was also the RNAS under Charles Rumney Sampson, but using French cameras and expertise.


Hi
I think you will find that the radio at the Dardanelles was Wireless Telegraphy (Morse) not telephony. Telegraphy for artillery observation was in use on the Western front during 1914 by all sides, although in short supply so other methods of communication were also in use eg. signal lamps and pyrotechnics. Extracts from a RFC arty spotting document of December 1914 showing methods of communication below:












The book 'The Air Defence of Britain 1914-1918' by Cole & Cheesman goes into fair amount detail on voice communication used in air defence in Britain.
For pre-WW1 British trials and experiments with communications between air and ground, including wireless, there is my article, 'Communication and Aircraft: The British Military Experience', published in 'Cross & Cockade International Journal' of Winter 2019, for those interested. I also covered the experiments on voice communication between aircraft and tanks during WW1 to some extent in a two-part article on 'Tank Contact Patrols' in the Winter 2009 and Spring 2010 editions of the same journal.

Mike

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


----------



## nuuumannn (Jul 7, 2022)

MikeMeech said:


> I think you will find that the radio at the Dardanelles was Wireless Telegraphy (Morse) not telephony. Telegraphy for artillery observation was in use on the Western front during 1914 by all sides, although in short supply so other methods of communication were also in use eg. signal lamps and pyrotechnics.



Oh, oops, forgot that, useful to know. Thanks Mike. I wrote a series of articles on aviation in the Dardanelles campaign years back. Brain's a little fuzzy. I've had a couple of articles published in Cross + Cockade, mainly about early torpedo aeroplanes, and by association the Dardanelles, and I've always found the subject fascinating because of the scope of aviation during the conflict. The use of technologies such as wireless and photo recon was groundbreaking, but it barely gets a mention in the scheme of things. A good series of articles was Over the Wine Dark Sea, which was published in C+C about the campaign. Very insightful.


----------



## GreenKnight121 (Jul 8, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> My understanding is that the engine itself generated static to the extent that the radio on the Zero, while not absolutely useless, was so poor that it could not reliably transmit for the four hundred or so miles of a mission round-trip back to base. It's not that they didn't have long-range radio, it's that the generator(?) in the engine gave electrical interference.


DC generators for the electrical system were the standard for autos long after WW2 - our 1962 GMC Carryall (and the 1954 Willy's CJ-3B Jeep) had a generator, not an alternator (the alternator has an extra circuit called a bridge rectifier, which converts the AC current produced by the alternator to the DC current used by the vehicle electrical equipment).

The generator DOES produce static that is heard in an improperly filtered/shielded radio... we always knew when the filter capacitors on the power feed to the AM radio were going bad, as you could hear noise that varied in frequency and intensity with the engine RPM.

When we got the 1972 Chevy Blazer it was amazing how much clearer the AM stations came in.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jul 8, 2022)

I will sometimes switch my car's radio to the AM band, tune it between stations, and listen to the engine firing.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## NevadaK (Jul 8, 2022)

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> I've had the good fortune to talk to a couple of dozen WW2 fighter pilots over the years. Generally, they liked the plane(s) they flew, but when you try to get them talking about the combat performance etc., what they usually talked about was things like landing and takeoff, how comfortable they were to sit in and so on.


Sort of like the first gent in this article. Although he does talk a bit about turning…









Flying the Seafire: a comparison with the Vought F4U Corsair and Hawker Sea Fury - The Aviation Geek Club


Flying the Seafire: a comparison with the Vought F4U Corsair and Hawker Sea Fury




theaviationgeekclub.com

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jul 8, 2022)

GreenKnight121 said:


> DC generators for the electrical system were the standard for autos long after WW2 - our 1962 GMC Carryall (and the 1954 Willy's CJ-3B Jeep) had a generator, not an alternator (the alternator has an extra circuit called a bridge rectifier, which converts the AC current produced by the alternator to the DC current used by the vehicle electrical equipment).
> 
> The generator DOES produce static that is heard in an improperly filtered/shielded radio... we always knew when the filter capacitors on the power feed to the AM radio were going bad, as you could hear noise that varied in frequency and intensity with the engine RPM.
> 
> When we got the 1972 Chevy Blazer it was amazing how much clearer the AM stations came in.



We had a 65 Dodge truck with that going on. The frequency of the static would rise and fall with rpms.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Macandy (Jul 8, 2022)

NevadaK said:


> Sort of like the first gent in this article. Although he does talk a bit about turning…
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Although he's a bit disingenuous.
Even the Seafire III, the last wartime variant had a decidedly pedestrian top speed of just 350mph on a good day, it required the F-4U to dump all its advantages and come play on your terms for this turning fight.
And the last WWII Corsair version, the F-4U4? It was a beast - arguably one of the best piston engined fighters ever.

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


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Jul 8, 2022)

Interesting that even that guy notes that a Corsair could 'turn with' a Seafire at low speed, with flaps etc., that is news to me


----------



## NevadaK (Jul 8, 2022)

Macandy said:


> Although he's a bit disingenuous.
> Even the Seafire III, the last wartime variant had a decidedly pedestrian top speed of just 350mph on a good day, it required the F-4U to dump all its advantages and come play on your terms for this turning fight.
> And the last WWII Corsair version, the F-4U4? It was a beast - arguably one of the best piston engined fighters ever.


His comment about, "if we saw them first" is a little telling. My guess is that the Corsair was more able to dictate the terms of the dogfight than the Seafire. It sounds like the Seafire needed to get it into a turning fight to gain the advantage. But, I could just be reading a lot into it.

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


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 8, 2022)

Macandy said:


> Although he's a bit disingenuous.
> Even the Seafire III, the last wartime variant had a decidedly pedestrian top speed of just 350mph on a good day, it required the F-4U to dump all its advantages and come play on your terms for this turning fight.
> And the last WWII Corsair version, the F-4U4? It was a beast - arguably one of the best piston engined fighters ever.


There's a maneuver called a yo-yo...

As mentioned, "the Corsair was more able to dictate the terms of the dogfight than the Seafire."

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Jul 8, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> There's a maneuver called a yo-yo...
> 
> As mentioned, "the Corsair was more able to dictate the terms of the dogfight than the Seafire."



Some people claim that WW2 pilots didn't do Yo Yo but from pilot interviews it sounds like they did. This is how Robert DeHaven described turning with a Zero in a P-40:

_[Y]ou could fight a Jap on even terms, but you had to make him fight your way. He could outturn you at slow speed. You could outturn him at high speed. When you got into a turning fight with him, you dropped your nose down so you kept your airspeed up, you could outturn him. At low speed he could outroll you because of those big ailerons ... on the Zero. If your speed was up over 275, you could outroll [a Zero]. His big ailerons didn't have the strength to make high speed rolls... You could push things, too. Because ... f you decided to go home, you could go home. He couldn't because you could outrun him. [...] That left you in control of the fight.

Which sounds to me like a Low Yo Yo_

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Jul 8, 2022)

Macandy said:


> Even the Seafire III, the last wartime variant had a decidedly pedestrian top speed of just 350mph on a good day ...



I wonder what the story was there ... looking at the test at : Seafire Mk. III Trials

Using that as a starting point and moving to photos of BPF Seafires -- it seems like refinements would include:

individual exhaust stubs instead of triple ejector fishtails and heaters
small cannon bulges instead of large 'universal wing' bulges
unused 20-mm stubs faired over instead of hemispherical blanks (I see quite a few examples of both, it seems)
-------------------------------------
Aero-Vee air filter instead of temperate air intake with snow guard ... I'm sure the larger air intake was a downside but I'm assuming there was no snow guard in the Pacific
how prevalent was the +18 boost upgrade?
All things considered I would expect to see faster than the usual numbers I see quoted. Maybe the climate really knocked the wind out of it?


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jul 8, 2022)

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> Some people claim that WW2 pilots didn't do Yo Yo but from pilot interviews it sounds like they did. This is how Robert DeHaven described turning with a Zero in a P-40:
> 
> _[Y]ou could fight a Jap on even terms, but you had to make him fight your way. He could outturn you at slow speed. You could outturn him at high speed. When you got into a turning fight with him, you dropped your nose down so you kept your airspeed up, you could outturn him. At low speed he could outroll you because of those big ailerons ... on the Zero. If your speed was up over 275, you could outroll [a Zero]. His big ailerons didn't have the strength to make high speed rolls... You could push things, too. Because ... f you decided to go home, you could go home. He couldn't because you could outrun him. [...] That left you in control of the fight.
> 
> Which sounds to me like a Low Yo Yo_



My understanding is that yoyos both low and high are useful for cutting turn radius insofar as they either expend extra energy (high yoyo), thereby shortening the radius of the turn, or in the case of a low yoyo, allow you to pick up speed and still maintain a tight turn.

Not being a pilot, much less a fighter pilot, I can only get it from reading or flying a sim, which may or may not be accurate. But essentially a yoyo burns turn-radius into the vertical plane and ideally allows you to maintain a suitable horizontal turn-radius with the hope of catching a suitable sight-picture, either by burning off speed in a high yoyo, or recapturing speed in a low yoyo.


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Jul 8, 2022)

yep, and I think that is what DeHaven meant by 'putting your nose down' in the turn. 

Some of the pilots in the Med mentioned cutting turns tight going nose down and deploying a small amount of flaps. The P-40 had a flap control on the joystick. They didn't have a specific combat flap setting but apparently would deploy some in certain maneuvers. Going nose down helps pick up the speed you would normally lose with some flaps down.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jul 8, 2022)

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> yep, and I think that is what DeHaven meant by 'putting your nose down' in the turn.
> 
> Some of the pilots in the Med mentioned cutting turns tight going nose down and deploying a small amount of flaps. The P-40 had a flap control on the joystick. They didn't have a specific combat flap setting but apparently would deploy some in certain maneuvers. Going nose down helps pick up the speed you would normally lose with some flaps down.



Right, and if you're coming down in a dive and trying to overshoot your opponent, pulling into a high yoyo will both reduce horizontal turn radius and preserve alt.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 8, 2022)

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> *Some people claim that WW2 pilots didn't do Yo Yo* but from pilot interviews it sounds like they did. This is how Robert DeHaven described turning with a Zero in a P-40:
> 
> _[Y]ou could fight a Jap on even terms, but you had to make him fight your way. He could outturn you at slow speed. You could outturn him at high speed. When you got into a turning fight with him, you dropped your nose down so you kept your airspeed up, you could outturn him. At low speed he could outroll you because of those big ailerons ... on the Zero. If your speed was up over 275, you could outroll [a Zero]. His big ailerons didn't have the strength to make high speed rolls... You could push things, too. Because ... f you decided to go home, you could go home. He couldn't because you could outrun him. [...] That left you in control of the fight.
> 
> Which sounds to me like a Low Yo Yo_


They did - maybe didn't call it a yo-yo but the maneuver was used.

Too many people watch movies and videos and horizontal maneuvering gets implanted in their brain.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Jul 8, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Right, and if you're coming down in a dive and trying to overshoot your opponent, pulling into a high yoyo will both reduce horizontal turn radius and preserve alt.



Or if you have some E and are in a beast of a plane like a Corsair with a ton of power, and a nimble enemy aircraft like an A6M does a tight horizontal turn, you can go high and come out right on their tail.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jul 9, 2022)

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> Or if you have some E and are in a beast of a plane like a Corsair with a ton of power, and a nimble enemy aircraft like an A6M does a tight horizontal turn, you can go high and come out right on their tail.



Pretty much what I was saying, yeah. A high yoyo is used to burn energy without surrendering position.

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


----------



## EwenS (Jul 9, 2022)

Greyman said:


> I wonder what the story was there ... looking at the test at : Seafire Mk. III Trials
> 
> Using that as a starting point and moving to photos of BPF Seafires -- it seems like refinements would include:
> 
> ...



Only 103 Seafire F.III were built from the earliest aircraft on the Westland production line. By the end of 1944 only 887 squadron on Indefatigable still had them. In Jan 1945 the squadron had 24 (of 40 Seafires on Indefatigable), but that number fell until by July the squadron had 15 F.III and 9 L.III, as replacements were hard to come by. The F.III was fitted with the Merlin 55 rated at 1,470hp at +16lb boost at 9,250 ft.

The first L.III came off the production line in March 1944. That had the Merlin 55M engine with the cropped supercharger impeller & +18lb boost generating 1,585hp at 2,750 ft.

The final version was the FR.III (or LR.III in some references) which was an L.III with the same camera installation as an LR.IIc. Some conversions by Westland and the final 129 from Cunliffe Owen in 1945. Mike Crosley's personal mount while CO of 880 on Implacable in 1945 was FR.III NN621 coded 115/N. That was a Cunliffe Owen built aircraft produced around Feb 1945.

A lot of changes were made during the early Seafire III production days. Some came off the line with fixed wings (incl LR765) on which some later had folding wings substituted. Some early aircraft (incl LR765 the first F.III) had three bladed props although I note that this had been replaced on LR765 with a four bladed one by the time of the test. Individual exhaust stacks added some thrust (and reduced weight), the smaller wing blisters were worth 5mph. The air intake that LR765 came off the line with, was replaced early in production with the Vokes Aero-Vee filter common to later Merlin engined Spitfires as shown here:-

LR765 as originally built






Later production L.III






The outboard cannon stubs were deleted on the production line very early. From late 1944 the shorter & lighter Hispano Mk.V began to be fitted in place of the Mk.II. Very few of these seem to have reached combat before the end of the war however, although Implacable's squadrons do seem to have had a few. Big discussion about this a few years back here.








Seafire lll - Use of Mk V 20mm Cannon


I have read that later versions of the Seafire lll LF were equipped with the faster firing, lighter weight and shorter barrel Mk V 20mm cannon in place of the heavier long barrel Mk II 20mm cannon. The Mk V cannon was 12 inches shorter than the Mk II cannon, and the cannon fairing covering the ba...




www.britmodeller.com





Zero length rocket launchers became a possible fit but were not cleared for use before the end of the war despite Implacable's squadrons taking them to the Pacific.

There was a quality of finish problem with early Westland built aircraft. LR766, the second F.III built, was examined in detail and photos sent back to the factories to highlight areas for improvement. I've read that such poor finish could cut as much as 20mph from the top speed but whether it had any affect in the case of this test is not recorded. Cunliffe Owen is reputed to have produced the best quality Seafires but only produced 350 Mk.III compared to the c900 produced by Westland. The same effect was seen on aircraft in service, as they got bashed about and panels stopped fitting quite so well etc.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Jul 12, 2022)

GreenKnight121 said:


> The initial production of the Mustang was for the RAF - the Mustang 1, with 2 x .50 mg under the nose and 2 x .50 mg & 4 x .30 mg in the wings (the RAF had specified 2 x .50 mg & 4 x .30 mg, but NAA added bonus guns).


True, but only because NAA denied priority for 20mm. Atwood delivered three armament configs to AFPC in March 1940 (for P-509 which morphed into NA-73), one of which was 4x50, another 4x50 plus 4x30 and last 4x20mm. Strictly speaking the cheek guns were specified (in NA-1620 Specification joint development for NA-73) in contrast to bonus?


GreenKnight121 said:


> *150 Mustang 1As (93 of which ended up with the USAAF as the P-51 {no variant letter} did have 4 x 20mm cannons... but these were British ordered aircraft - the USAAF never ordered any with the cannons.*


Info surfaced recently by fellow poster Colin Ford and Bob Bourliet that only 92 were actually on the RAF books. Of the 58 remaining, 56 remained P-51-NA and -1-NA and -2-NA depending upon Depot mod for camera install. One went to USN and two were sent (after acceptance by AAF) to Experimental Department at NAA to emerge as XP-51Bs.

To your point about *AAF not ordering a 20mm version*, you are correct. The Aussie contract for NA-107 was originally for 2x20m plus 2x50cal, then morphed into NA-110 as P-51D-5-A kits plus one production P-51D-5-NA, as NA-107 was dissolved into NA-103 and NA-111; and NA-106 was dissolved into NA-104 and 109. That said, the AAF and NAA went deep into production P-51F discussions, with 4x20mm interceptor version, before P-51F was cancelled due to impossibility of installing even a 55 gal fuse tank - and there was no interceptor mission currently deemed 'inadequate with P-38 or P-51B/D'. So, the 20mm configs were proposed by NAA (including A-36 when it was Low Level Pursuit as a 2x20; and 4x20; and 2x37 plus 4x20mm, among several proposed armament suggestions, but not accepted by AAF. IIRC the first NAA proposed, and accepted by USAF 20mm config, was the GunVal F-86 in 1953, even though the USN had figured it out long before for all NAA produced fighters.


GreenKnight121 said:


> Beginning in mid-1943, the RAAF fitted a Mustang I with a modified wing and two Vickers 40-millimeter "S" guns, one under each wing. The two 12.7-millimeter guns in the nose were retained in this configuration, but the wing armament was reduced to a single 7.62-millimeter gun in each wing. This particular weapons fit was not judged worth pursuing further, and no other Mustang ever featured it.
> 
> The P-51B/Cs had just 4 x .50 mg in the wings, but all other Mustangs had an armament of 6 x .50 mg (first 2 in the nose & 4 in the wings for the A-36/P-51A, then 6 in the wings for the P-51D/K) until the P-51H, which reverted to the 4 x .50 mg in the wings fit.


Picky but the XP-51F and G and J were 4x50cal. but there is no evidence that the J armament was ever installed, AFAIK.

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


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Jul 12, 2022)

Wasn't the USN still having trouble with their 20mms into the 50s?


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Jul 12, 2022)

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> Wasn't the USN still having trouble with their 20mms into the 50s?


I believe they were having trouble with their Mk12's (Hispano) right into the 70's, with the F8 Crusader.
The F-86 GunVal program in Korea used T-160 revolver cannons (which became the M39)

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


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 12, 2022)

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> Wasn't the USN still having trouble with their 20mms into the 50s?


Which 20mm guns?

and how much trouble, nobodies guns were 100% trouble free. 

The USN used M3 20mm guns that fired at around 700-750rpm on some of the late 1940s fighters. 
They switched to MK 12 20mm guns on the slightly newer planes, like FJ-2s and F2H-3s.
The MK 12s used electrical primed ammo and fired at 1000-1200rpm. I don't know how much trouble was from the guns or how much trouble was from the installations. 
Certainly the F-8 Crusader had trouble in a number of areas. One trouble was the empty cases jamming in the collection chute, the fired cases were not ejected overboard due to potential airframe damage. 
The fast firing guns came up with problems of their own or increased existing problems. Some gun bays did not have enough venting for the gun gas. The Vought Cutlass had problems with gun gas from muzzles causing flame outs of the engines, a lot of jets suffered from this with a number of different cannon and engines. 

Also note that the ammo used in the MK 12 gun was not the same ammo as was used in the Hispano. While both cartridges are called 20 x 110 the USN cartridges used a fatter cartridge case. They also used a lighter projectile. 

It doesn't really matter if they had solved the 20mm Hispano problems or not. The problems with the 1950s guns were with new guns and with new ammo.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 12, 2022)

Clayton Magnet said:


> The F-86 GunVal program in Korea used T-160 *rotary* cannons (which became the M39)


Just being a bit persnickety and usage may have changed but now the rotary cannon is generally considered to be the Gatling type gun with multiple barrels. 
The M39 used multiple chambers but a single barrel and is now usually referred to as a revolver cannon. 

I don't know what old articles/documents may have said.

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


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Jul 12, 2022)

Shortround6 said:


> Just being a bit persnickety and usage may have changed but now the rotary cannon is generally considered to be the Gatling type gun with multiple barrels.
> The M39 used multiple chambers but a single barrel and is now usually referred to as a revolver cannon.
> 
> I don't know what old articles/documents may have said.


Good catch. I've edited my post to reduce confusion


----------



## Macandy (Jul 13, 2022)

EwenS said:


> There was a quality of finish problem with early Westland built aircraft.



Westland were Britains Brewster - build quality was very much an optional extra

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Macandy (Jul 13, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> There's a maneuver called a yo-yo...
> 
> As mentioned, "the Corsair was more able to dictate the terms of the dogfight than the Seafire."




We seem to be in violent agreement.

As I noted, no Corsair pilot would have to engage in a classic turning fight with a Seafire unless he was 'playing fair' in a goof off fight.
This is why many fighter 'comparisons' based on simple turn rates are off, see the Tempest - it could handily defeat a Spitfire in a turning fight using its brute power and ferocious snap roll ability - Spitfires bent if snap rolled.


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Jul 13, 2022)

Macandy said:


> We seem to be in violent agreement.
> 
> As I noted, no Corsair pilot would have to engage in a classic turning fight with a Seafire unless he was 'playing fair' in a goof off fight.
> This is why many fighter 'comparisons' based on simple turn rates are off, see the Tempest - it could handily defeat a Spitfire in a turning fight using its brute power and ferocious snap roll ability - Spitfires bent if snap rolled.


Spitfire bent if snapped rolled? You have a source for that?

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


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Jul 13, 2022)

The USN decided before they entered the war that then 50 cal was inadequate for their needs as far as shipboard defense was concerned. They went to a great deal of effort and expense to replace the already available 50 cal with a weapon that was even slower firing rate than the Hispano and with an even lower muzzile velopcity.

From the BuOrd history













This next paragraph was a Suprise to me






For aircraft mounted guns 










The Navy was interested in the 20mm long before the Army (and by extension the AAF) because they needed stopping power.

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


----------



## NevadaK (Jul 13, 2022)

No mention of proximity fusing? 

I believe that technology had quite a bit to do with improvement of shipboard AA capability. Not critiquing the article. Just surprised.









The Allies' Billion-dollar Secret: The Proximity Fuze of World War II


An engineering triumph developed under strict wartime secrecy, the proximity fuze vastly increased the lethality of anti-aircraft guns and field artillery.




www.historynet.com

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Jul 13, 2022)

NevadaK said:


> No mention of proximity fusing?
> 
> I believe that technology had quite a bit to do with improvement of shipboard AA capability. Not critiquing the article. Just surprised.
> 
> ...


Of course there is. I thought I linked the entire history previously. Here:





__





Catalog Record: U.S. Navy Bureau of Ordnance in World War II






catalog.hathitrust.org


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 13, 2022)

The Hispano needed more maintenance than the Oerlikon gun and the Oerlikon tolerated worse weather conditions better. A gun that is frozen up or rusted in place is worthless when the enemy aircraft show up. 
By Late 1944/early 1945 the Oerlikon was sometimes considered the last warning system. When the boiler room crew heard the 20mm guns start firing they knew to start shutting down the boiler fans. Even if the 20mm hit the Japanese aircraft the Japanese wreck could still hit the ship.
The 40mm was considered the least caliber gun to be useful and they were considering/planning of replacing the 40mm guns with fast firing 3in/75mm guns (in part because they had figured out how to get a proximity fuse into a 3 in shell) 

That is how fast things changed. Late 30s had 4-12 .50 cal guns as the desired light AA aboard ship (depending on ship size) 1946-1948 saw batteries of 3in guns being the smallest AA guns.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Jul 13, 2022)

I didn't realize that the Navy was looking at the Hispano as far back as 1936. 
There was quite a divergence in the philosophies of the two services. The Army's (and by extension the AAC) prewar preparations concentrated on getting as many men into uniform as possible with the weapons they needed. Standardization was a necessity. The Navy tended to place a higher value on performance. They had high value assets to protect and to attack. They also had the problem of having nowhere to hide. You can't put some netting and foliage on top of a battleship and pretend it's an island. The Navy was more scientifically oriented by nature of the problems they had to solve. For example, they had far more severe gunnery problems. Hitting a moving target while you are moving isn't as easy as shelling a troop concentration from a fixed artillery position. On the other hand, the Army, for example, decided to leave their 76 mm armed Shermans in England on D-day in favor of the 75 mm version despite the 76s much better anti-tank properties in order to simplify logistics 
It's no coincidence that the Navy developed the Norden bombsight and that they obtained the gyro gunsight from the British before the Army expressed an interest in it. After the war the Navy's weapons programs seemed to be more successful than the Airforce's, examples being the Sidewinder and Sparrow and the F4 and the A7, all of which were eventually adopted by the Airforce.
The Army tended to think the best is the enemy of the good, while the Navy thought more along the lines of the best is scarcely good enough

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## EwenS (Jul 14, 2022)

Reluctant Poster said:


> They also had the problem of having nowhere to hide. You can't put some netting and foliage on top of a battleship and pretend it's an island.


Sorry but I just can’t resist!

IJN Haruna in 1945

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


----------



## ThomasP (Jul 14, 2022)

re ". . . see the Tempest - it could handily defeat a Spitfire in a turning fight using its brute power and ferocious snap roll ability - Spitfires bent if snap rolled."

and

re "Spitfire bent if snapped rolled? You have a source for that?"

A 'snap-roll' in British parlance was referred to as a 'flick roll' and was often not mentioned specifically as a roll, but simply included under the prohibition against 'flick maneuvers'. The idea being that the pilot should be careful to not over-stress the airframe by moving the stick as quickly as possible when entering a maneuver, thus producing too many Gs. Most of the British fighter aircraft had low enough stick forces that this could be a serious problem. This included entering a rolling maneuver, or roliing into a high-G turn. Most WWII aircraft had this prohibition. In some cases, at higher speeds in particular, performing a 'flick maneuver' could also cause departure from controlled flight - during which maneuver the airframe could encounter excessive Gs.

The Pilot's Notes for the Spitfire/Seafire prohibits 'flick maneuvers'. The Pilot's Notes for the Tempest Mk V also prohibits 'flick maneuvers'.

However, in British tests near the end of the war it was noted that the Tempest could out-roll the Spitfire Mk IX & XIV at speeds over 300 mph IAS. In the same tests the FW 190 out-rolled every aircraft tested at speeds from 200 to 400 mph IAS. The other aircraft tested included:

Mustang III
Thunderbolt II
Tempest II & V
Spitfire IX & XIV
Spitfire 21
Meteor III
Me 109G


Since this thread includes the F4U :

As far as I know, during WWII the only Allied fighter that could safely perform a 'snap roll' was the USN F3F biplane (160°/sec+). As far as I know, the only German fighter that could safely perform a "snap roll" was the FW 190 variant with the original 34' wingspan (the high altitude long-wing variants lost this ability).

In several of the UK and US tests involving the FW 190, comments were made as to how the 190 could perform 'flick'/'snap' roll maneuvers far beyond what the Allied fighters it was being tested against could do. The only exception mentioned among the tests that I am aware of is one where it was said that the F4U could roll about as well as the FW 190 - but based on the designs, other tests/available data, and almost universal after-action reports with other combat aircraft, I can find no reason to believe this was true. It was only at speeds above ~380 mph that a few of the Allied aircraft (F4U, P-51B, and P-38L) could match the FW 190 in roll rate in tests.

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


----------



## GregP (Jul 14, 2022)

I have found similar statements and anecdotes, all saying the Corsair could out-roll most other fighters, but never recall seeing it go up against an Fw 190. I am also under the impression the Fw 190 was a VERY good roller until it hit higher speeds, at which time some Allied fighters could stay with or even surpass it. Notably, the P-40 seems to have been a better roller than most other U.S. aircraft. I have seen one memo on the roll capability of the P-40Q, but have not been able to locate it again, and have never seen a roll performance chart for it.

Most aerobatic aircraft have aerodynamic "tricks" that make them have an abrupt stall when some pre-determined angle of attack is reached, and big rudders and elevators to generate crisp snap rolls. But the intent is to generate a rapid snap (flick) roll at relatively low speeds. You don't snap-roll an Su-31 at high speed! An Extra 300 snap rolls at 80 - 140 knots and it is stressed higher than a WWII fighter. I think it is likely that most WWII fighters CAN snap roll at under 100 mph, but the designers know that in the fog of combat, nobody will listen to the airspeed restrictions for a snap roll, so they placard them to be safe.

I'd bet a P-51 could snap-roll at 90 mph without bending, but perhaps not at 180 mph. The issue with the P-51 is whether or not the pilot could un-stall it at a predetermined point, or would he go into the famous 10,000 foot spin. A LOT might depend on the load being carried, the location of the weight, and the power level being carried at the time.

Several combat reports from Navy F6F Hellcats mention snap-rolls or partial snap rolls (vertical reverse) as combat maneuvers. Not too sure if that was approved or just necessary at the time. My copy of the F6F-3 POH does not mention snap rolls at all, but gives instructions for spin recovery from as many as 4 turns in either direction.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Geoffrey Sinclair (Jul 14, 2022)

Reluctant Poster said:


> On the other hand, the Army, for example, decided to leave their 76 mm armed Shermans in England on D-day in favor of the 75 mm version despite the 76s much better anti-tank properties in order to simplify logistics


Why was it logistics, given the several hundred M10 and M18 were using the gun? It is remarkable how production was wound down in 1944, 29,262 Shermans built to end 1943, out of 49,234, so the allies had plenty of 1943 Shermans. First 76mm Shermans in January, first 105mm Shermans in February 1944. By the end of May 113 M4 76mm were in England, 127 more were received in June, 168 in July, and 122 in August, a total of 530. Some 1,296 Sherman 76mm had been completed to end May. 

The US tank supply line to Europe,
M4 76mm, first production January 1944, first deployment week ending 22 July
M4 105mm, first production February 1944, first deployment week ending 8 July
M24, first production in April 1944 (1, then 24 in May), first deployment week ending 28 December.

Operational tanks, As of period ending 1 July First Army held 764 M4 75mm and 406 M5.
Operational tanks, As of period ending 11/12 August 12th Army Group held 881 M4 75mm, 138 M4 76mm, 64 M4 105mm and 686 M5.

Third Army did not receive any M4 76mm until week ending 26 August, 9th Army until week ending 20 October.

It was not just the guns Sherman protection and combat power related improvements in early 1944:

The 47 degree sloped front plate, there was an increase in thickness (2 to 2.5 inches) plus the elimination of shot traps and the extra slope to improve protection. Thicker glacis. Wet Stowage. All early 1944 76mm Shermans came with superior optics, compared to the 75mm versions, such optics had already been fitted to the M10 and M18. Then, probably during 1944, M18 production was fitted with an even better optics system. The 76mm Sherman production caught up with Tank Destroyer optics again in the second half of 1944 and the 75mm Sherman version, M4A3, still in production was also fitted with similar superior sights at the same time. The first of these 75 and 76mm Shermans arrived in Europe in the autumn of 1944. These improvements was rated as "nearly as good as the Germans", with the US system having a wider field of view, helping situational awareness. Late model M36 had probably even better optics.

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


----------



## EwenS (Jul 14, 2022)

The M10 (3 inch M7) used a different gun from the M18 (76mm M1) and different ammunition. About the only thing in common was the calibre

There were only 3 battalions of M18 tank destroyers in Britain by D-Day, all allocated to Patton’s US Third Army. These units didn’t arrive in Britain until April 1944 and the first of these wasn’t issued with its M18s until May 1944. All then were shipped to France from mid-July.

The first M4A1(76) and M4(105) were rushed from the production lines to Britain, arriving before the end of April. So faster than the normal 5 months or so delivery schedule factory door to front line. These were offered to the Armoured units scheduled to land during the early part of Overlord but no one wanted the complication of disrupting training schedules and arranging the carrying of a new stock of ammunition within those units that close to D-Day.

So the first 120 M4A1(76) were shipped to France and issued to 2 & 3 Armoured Divisions in First Army just in time for Operation Cobra at the end of July, when they needed more tank killing power to face German armour.

If you haven’t already found it the Sherman Minutia site contains a wealth of information about all the Sherman models, production and deployment details.


Sherman minutia homepage

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Jul 14, 2022)

ThomasP said:


> However, in British tests near the end of the war it was noted that the Tempest could out-roll the Spitfire Mk IX & XIV. In the same tests the FW 190 out-rolled every aircraft tested at speeds from 200 to 400 mph. The other aircraft tested included:


The Spit LF's got close to the Butcher bird, the MkIXe LF with the Merlin 66 was specificly developed to counter it.


----------



## Macandy (Jul 14, 2022)

GregP said:


> I have found similar statements and anecdotes, all saying the Corsair could out-roll most other fighters, but never recall seeing it go up against an Fw 190. I am also under the impression the Fw 190 was a VERY good roller until it hit higher speeds, at which time some Allied fighters could stay with or even surpass it. Notably, the P-40 seems to have been a better roller than most other U.S. aircraft. I have seen one memo on the roll capability of the P-40Q, but have not been able to locate it again, and have never seen a roll performance chart for it.
> 
> Most aerobatic aircraft have aerodynamic "tricks" that make them have an abrupt stall when some pre-determined angle of attack is reached, and big rudders and elevators to generate crisp snap rolls. But the intent is to generate a rapid snap )flick) roll at relatively low speeds. You don't snap-roll an Su-31 at high speed! An Extra 300 snap rolls at 80 - 140 knots and it is stressed higher than a WWII fighter. I think it is likely that most WWII fighters CAN snap roll at under 100 mph, but the designers know that in the fog of combat, nobody will listen to the airspeed restrictions for a snap roll, so they placard them to be safe.
> 
> ...




A huge advantage the Corsair had when a pilot flew the wings off it is it didn't bend - It was a extremely strong airframe.
Don't be too 'abrupt' with a Spitfire, it was regularly trip to the fire dump when you got back as the wings would bend


----------



## Macandy (Jul 14, 2022)

Geoffrey Sinclair said:


> Why was it logistics, given the several hundred M10 and M18 were using the gun? It is remarkable how production was wound down in 1944, 29,262 Shermans built to end 1943, out of 49,234, so the allies had plenty of 1943 Shermans. First 76mm Shermans in January, first 105mm Shermans in February 1944. By the end of May 113 M4 76mm were in England, 127 more were received in June, 168 in July, and 122 in August, a total of 530. Some 1,296 Sherman 76mm had been completed to end May.
> 
> The US tank supply line to Europe,
> M4 76mm, first production January 1944, first deployment week ending 22 July
> ...




Logistics on D Day were critical, and you wanted gun tanks to support the infantry breaking out off the beaches - and the 75mm gun was a much better support gun.
Tanks didn't often fight tanks contrary to popular belief. Most Shermans never fired a single AP round at another tank in anger.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Jul 14, 2022)

Macandy said:


> Logistics on D Day were critical, and you wanted gun tanks to support the infantry breaking out off the beaches - and the 75mm gun was a much better support gun.
> Tanks didn't often fight tanks contrary to popular belief. Most Shermans never fired a single AP round at another tank in anger.


The British developed the firefly to counter German tanks, from memory it was normal low velocity 75mm Shermans with one or two 17 pounder Fireflys to counter all the different threats encountered.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Jul 14, 2022)

Macandy said:


> Don't be too 'abrupt' with a Spitfire, it was regularly trip to the fire dump when you got back as the wings would bend


The Spit could be over G'd because it was so responsive to pilot imput, Winkle Brown talks about it in one of his books.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Macandy (Jul 14, 2022)

PAT303 said:


> The British developed the firefly to counter German tanks, from memory it was normal low velocity 75mm Shermans with one or two 17 pounder Fireflys to counter all the different threats encountered.




Indeed, 1 Firefly per Troop of 75's - the 17lb gun had a weak HE round


----------



## Macandy (Jul 14, 2022)

PAT303 said:


> The Spit could be over G'd because it was so responsive to pilot imput, Winkle Brown talks about it in one of his books.



'The Spitfire was a pilots plane, but it wasn't a warplane'

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


----------



## pbehn (Jul 14, 2022)

Macandy said:


> 'The Spitfire was a pilots plane, but it wasn't a warplane'


Most planes require a pilot.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Macandy (Jul 14, 2022)

pbehn said:


> Most planes require a pilot.




It was a designer's pet project, but paid no head to the need to be producible, supportable or able to operate under Auster circumstances.

You could build a Mustang with the same engine in 25% of the time, it was easy to make, tough, durable and easy to maintain. Pretty much every panel of a Spitfire was a continuous curve that needed hand cutting, hand rolling, then hand fitting. No guillotined out panels gang drilled on a multi axis drill press.


----------



## pbehn (Jul 14, 2022)

Macandy said:


> It was a designer's pet project, but paid no head to the need to be producible, supportable or able to operate under Auster circumstances.
> 
> You could build a Mustang with the same engine in 25% of the time, it was easy to make, tough, durable and easy to maintain. Pretty much every panel of a Spitfire was a continuous curve that needed hand cutting, hand rolling, then hand fitting. No guillotined out panels gang drilled on a multi axis drill press.


I always wondered why only 20,000 were made thanks for the info.

In fact the Spitfire was a peacetime design, if war hadnt been declared it would have been produced in numbers like the Gloster Gladiator 747 and replaced by the Typhoon and Tornado, that was the plan anyway.

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


----------



## SaparotRob (Jul 14, 2022)

Sometimes we get focused on the stats of given airplanes and not the actual accomplishments. If Adolph Galland told Hermann Goering he wanted Spitfires, I'm going to assume the Spit was "effing" great. Mr. Galland should know.

Some of our Forum members might not be aware I'm not much of a numbers guy.

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


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Jul 14, 2022)

ThomasP said:


> However, in British tests near the end of the war it was noted that the Tempest could out-roll the Spitfire Mk IX & XIV


The tests showed that the Tempest could out roll a Mk.XIV above 350mph, but the Spitfire out rolled the Tempest below 300mph

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 14, 2022)

EwenS said:


> The M10 (3 inch M7) used a different gun from the M18 (76mm M1) and different ammunition. About the only thing in common was the calibre



Close, 
They did have different barrels, and breeches, and different cartridge cases with different powder charges. 

What was the same was the projectiles and the exterior ballistics. 
Both guns were going to have pretty much the same accuracy at the same ranges and both guns were able to penetrate the same thickness of armor at the same distance if both are using the same projectile. 

The problem for the tank battalion commanders was that the 3"/76mm HE projectiles held a lot less HE than the 75mm HE projectiles fired from the short 75mm guns. And the tanks armed with the 76mm guns held less ammo than the 75mm armed tanks. 
A 75mm armed tank was going to be able to stay in action a bit longer (or more than a bit) than a 76mm armed Sherman before it needed resupply. And since 75mm armed Sherman was going to do more damage to pill boxes, field fortifications, buildings and stuff (or even just spray shell fragments around a wood, brushy area) the 75mm armed tank was a lot more useful in a non-tank vs tank battle. The 75mm Sherman also had a much higher rate of fire than the 76mm armed tank. 

The 3in armed M10 TD had about the same advantages and disadvantages as the 76mm armed tank compared to the 75mm armed tank except that the 3in ammo was larger and bulkier meaning less could be carried and the turret lacked power traverse which means a lower rate of engagement.

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


----------



## pbehn (Jul 14, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> Sometimes we get focused on the stats of given airplanes and not the actual accomplishments. If Adolph Galland told Hermann Goering he wanted Spitfires, I'm going to assume the Spit was "effing" great. Mr. Galland should know.
> 
> Some of our Forum members might not be aware I'm not much of a numbers guy.


As I understand it that wasnt a ringing endorsement of the Spitfire by Galland, but a fair appraisal of the differences between the Spitfire/ Hurricane and Bf 109. The Bf 109 could break contact by going into a dive, but that isnt what you can or should do if required to close escort a bomber formation, which is what Goering was telling Galland and others to do.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Jul 14, 2022)

They also didn't issue the HVAP (improved AP) ammunition as much to the Tank battalions whereas the TDs got a bit more of it (though not as much as they could have had).

The 3 inch and 76mm guns were useful against enemy armor and not terrible against personnel or AT guns, (they also had a bit longer effective range and often came with better optics both of which helped a lot against AT guns) but the typical German tank or self propelled gun (Pz IV or StuG III) was fairly easily knocked out by the 75mm gun. This is why it was deemed sufficient in North Africa and in Sicily and Italy where they rarely saw the heavy tanks. Only when more of the heavier PZ V and VI and equivalent assault guns / tank destroyers started appearing here and there did the 75mm prove to be inadequate.

But against a Pz IV, and even against a Panther, the M4 tanks were much better in flanking attacks and from shorter range. And in this role again, the 75mm is enough, even against a Panther, unless they were at long range. Long range tank duels were a bad idea for Allied tanks in general, even the Firefly wasn't so good for this kind of thing as their ROF wasn't that high and they didn't have the best optics. TDs, including M10, M18, M36 and Achilles were more effective partly due to the open tops, they had better situational awareness (quicker to spot enemy AFV, quicker to shoot and scoot, and less bold in going places they shouldn't go where they were at risk of panzerfausts etc.) But they typically weren't going to engage in a tank duel either unless they got the first shot, i.e. attacking from ambush.

Sherman tanks during Cobra and afterward started getting up-armored with concrete, sandbags, and (by far most effective) cut out pieces from other tanks. Patton disapproved of the concrete, logs and sandbags and strictly forbade them, but had a large number of his tanks up-armored by welding glacis or side armor plates to the bow and turret, which apparently did not overload the drive train of the M4. This is a big part of the reason for their success in various engagements in later 1944 and early 1945.

The (W) wet ammunition stowage made a big difference too, especially to panzerfaust and panzershreck (etc.) attacks.

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


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Jul 14, 2022)

From a post somewhere out there:



> The exception to the sandbag armor practice was Patton's Third Army, which devised by far the best armor-protection package for its tanks. In the summer of 1944, the Third Army's ordnance officers had convinced Patton that sandbags were worthless and detrimental to the tank's suspension and powertrain, so Patton expressly forbade the use of sandbags in his units. Even Patton could not resist the clamor for better protection in the wake of the Battle of the Bulge, so he demanded that his ordnance officers come up with a better solution. The method was obvious--weld on more armor plate. The source was equally obvious--the numerous German and American tanks littering the Ardennes battlefield. In February 1945, Patton ordered that all M4A3 (76mm) in his units be fitted with additional front hull armor as well as turret armor if possible.





> With the Third Army's ordnance battalions already overworked, much of the work was handed over to three Belgian factories near Bastogne. The tanks of three armored divisions (the 4th, 6th, and 11th) were modified in this fashion, an average of 36 tanks per division out of their 168 Shermans. The program was both technically successful and very popular with the tank crews blessed with the appliqué armor. A 6th Armored Division tanker recalled how shortly after his M4A3E8 had been fitted with the armor in February 1945, his tank was hit by a 75mm round from a German armored vehicle, which knocked a piece of the appliqué armor from the hull but did not penetrate. This program was continued in March 1945 after Patton acquired a group of salvaged M4 tanks from the neighboring Seventh Army to cannibalize for armor plate.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Jul 14, 2022)

My understanding though is that the applique armor was already being used during Cobra, so not after the BoB.


----------



## SaparotRob (Jul 14, 2022)

pbehn said:


> As I understand it that wasnt a ringing endorsement of the Spitfire by Galland, but a fair appraisal of the differences between the Spitfire/ Hurricane and Bf 109. The Bf 109 could break contact by going into a dive, but that isnt what you can or should do if required to close escort a bomber formation, which is what Goering was telling Galland and others to do.


I know there was more to the story than a glib “telling off the boss”.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 14, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> I know there was more to the story than a glib “telling off the boss”.


There were similar goings on in the RAF "Those of high rank are never seen at high altitude" sort of sums it up. Goering was a WW1 ace, the highest scorer to survive but the fat old git couldnt even fit in a Bf 109, the 109 was not the tool to do what Goering was ordering Galland to do.

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


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Jul 14, 2022)

I think he's just trying to explain what the Bf 109 was good at vs. not good at. Luftwaffe pilots were still voicing similar complaints about flying escort missions in 1942 and 1943. Bf 109 was good at hit and run, but not close in sustained fighting in a constrained area.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 14, 2022)

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> I think he's just trying to explain what the Bf 109 was good at vs. not good at. Luftwaffe pilots were still voicing similar complaints about flying escort missions in 1942 and 1943. Bf 109 was good at hit and run, but not close in sustained fighting in a constrained area.


Galland wanted to do what the US escorts eventually did, seek out the RAF and attack it before they got to the bomber formation.

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


----------



## SaparotRob (Jul 14, 2022)

I have read this stuff before, just not as thoroughly as many of those here. After having lost Malta while trying to defend Wake in an earlier thread, I'm kind of gun shy.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Jul 14, 2022)

pbehn said:


> Galland wanted to do what the US escorts eventually did, seek out the RAF and attack it before they got to the bomber formation.



Right, and in the Med it was an ongoing debate between the Luftwaffe and the ground forces, and between the bomber pilots and the fighter pilots (notably JG 27). The bomber pilots wanted closer escort, and distrust between fighter and for example stuka units led to the latter being very quick to jettison bombs and emit smoke and go into various escape maneuvers as soon as they saw Allied fighters, much to the dismay of ground forces (who sometimes had 'friendly' bombs dropped on them). There were heated debates in the Luftwaffe about this.

Fighter pilots liked to attack the Allied fighters in the safest possible way, picking them off from above (preferably when they weren't paying attention) and quickly disengaging / evading. This worked very well to quickly accumulate very high scores for a handful of _experten_. But when it came down to either attacking of protecting bombers, including breaking up attacks against their own airfields, these tactics didn't succeed so well. 

This was a major factor after the reorganization of Allied Air forces in mid 1942 and notably, at El Alamein. It is in part what lead to the destruction of J.G. 27 and their replacement by J.G. 77 in fall 1942.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jul 14, 2022)

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> My understanding though is that the applique armor was already being used during Cobra, so not after the BoB.



So the stories I heard about Spitfires with logs tied to them aren't necessarily accurate?

Because logs are really good against rifle-caliber MG fire, I've heard.

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


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Jul 14, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> So the stories I heard about Spitfires with logs tied to them aren't necessarily accurate?
> 
> Because logs are really good against rifle-caliber MG fire, I've heard.


I would imagine that might increase drag and cause some C.O.G. issues.

I think there are some cases of up-armoring fighters in the field though, including possibly Spitfires. I know in some units in the Med individual spitfires might have the BP windscreen and some might not, and I think some pilots had an extra plate bolted on to the headrest on some aircraft. Not sure if spits though.


----------



## SaparotRob (Jul 14, 2022)

oops

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jul 14, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> So the stories I heard about Spitfires with logs tied to them aren't necessarily accurate?
> 
> Because logs are really good against rifle-caliber MG fire, I've heard.


I just peed myself a little.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jul 14, 2022)

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> I would imagine that might increase drag and cause some C.O.G. issues.
> 
> I think there are some cases of up-armoring fighters in the field though, including possibly Spitfires. I know in some units in the Med individual spitfires might have the BP windscreen and some might not, and I think some pilots had an extra plate bolted on to the headrest on some aircraft. Not sure if spits though.


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Jul 14, 2022)

So you are saying the logs were streamlined?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jul 14, 2022)

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> So you are saying the logs were streamlined?



I'm told that they were sanded and waxed in order to achieve better speed.

That's what surfers in SoCal did to ride waves better. They had to get the idea from _some_where, probably those crafty Fighter Command dudes:

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Jul 14, 2022)

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> Right, and in the Med it was an ongoing debate between the Luftwaffe and the ground forces, and between the bomber pilots and the fighter pilots (notably JG 27). The bomber pilots wanted closer escort, and distrust between fighter and for example stuka units led to the latter being very quick to jettison bombs and emit smoke and go into various escape maneuvers as soon as they saw Allied fighters, much to the dismay of ground forces (who sometimes had 'friendly' bombs dropped on them). There were heated debates in the Luftwaffe about this.
> 
> Fighter pilots liked to attack the Allied fighters in the safest possible way, picking them off from above (preferably when they weren't paying attention) and quickly disengaging / evading. This worked very well to quickly accumulate very high scores for a handful of _experten_. But when it came down to either attacking of protecting bombers, including breaking up attacks against their own airfields, these tactics didn't succeed so well.
> 
> This was a major factor after the reorganization of Allied Air forces in mid 1942 and notably, at El Alamein. It is in part what lead to the destruction of J.G. 27 and their replacement by J.G. 77 in fall 1942.


That would be an over simplification. Fighter pilots and fighter leaders were a spectrum of leadership and skills modifying 'doctrine' tactics as well as 'working within' an awkward doctrine. Most if not all the new guys probably chose the tactics you noted, or followed leaders initiating the attack. Experienced fighter pilots tended to do what worked for them. Unfortunately for those used to split Ess/dive issues of Spitfire or slow divers in Ost front, they were shcked many times (fatally) by high dive speeds of P-40 and P-38 in MTO - and really were educated by the P-47. Opinion - high percentage of experten killed vs P-47s atempted to dive to evade.

Egon Meyer for example, pioneered and led the dreaded Company front tactics against B-17s in fall/winter 1942. It started with assembling several miles in front of bomber stream, attacking with four to 8 Fw190s in shallow dive (i.e. 12 O'clock high), hit and split Ess. Galland modified to continue in shallow dive to gain speed and pull up without muchaltitude loss, and turn to ge out in front again. The point is that the LW pilots feared the B-17 formation firepowr and adapted.

The forthcoming orders were to avoid fighter and go after the bombers led to attack, split Ess and get out of town, but the able leaders understood the escort weaknesses and patiently awaited time to attack fighters to exploit them.

In the limited spectrum of my father's scores vs109s, three were combat in horizontal with no attempt to dive, two were chasing diving 109s, one was chase and manuever on the deck. The D-Day Ju 87 was potting it in frantic low level evasion attempt in near dark.

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


----------



## pbehn (Jul 14, 2022)

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> Right, and in the Med it was an ongoing debate between the Luftwaffe and the ground forces, and between the bomber pilots and the fighter pilots (notably JG 27). The bomber pilots wanted closer escort, and distrust between fighter and for example stuka units led to the latter being very quick to jettison bombs and emit smoke and go into various escape maneuvers as soon as they saw Allied fighters, much to the dismay of ground forces (who sometimes had 'friendly' bombs dropped on them). There were heated debates in the Luftwaffe about this.
> 
> Fighter pilots liked to attack the Allied fighters in the safest possible way, picking them off from above (preferably when they weren't paying attention) and quickly disengaging / evading. This worked very well to quickly accumulate very high scores for a handful of _experten_. But when it came down to either attacking of protecting bombers, including breaking up attacks against their own airfields, these tactics didn't succeed so well.
> 
> This was a major factor after the reorganization of Allied Air forces in mid 1942 and notably, at El Alamein. It is in part what lead to the destruction of J.G. 27 and their replacement by J.G. 77 in fall 1942.


Its easy to forget or overlook the huge difference between The LW against the RAF in 1940 and the USAAF against the LW in early 1944. In 1940 BoB LW fighters outnumbered the RAF by around 2 to 1 in total numbers, but the RAF had to spread its resources to cover the whole coast. Locally in the Pas de Calais the RAF could call upon around 300 fighters while the LW had around 1000. Goering instructed all of them to stick to the bomber formation, which meant many turned back being short of fuel escorting bombers that were not in any danger over the Channel itself without actually seeing the RAF, while others had to turn back over London having burned their fuel off staying with a formation labouring into headwinds.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Jul 14, 2022)

Macandy said:


> 'The Spitfire was a pilots plane, but it wasn't a warplane'


That's the funniest thing I've heard for a while.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jul 14, 2022)

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> So you are saying the logs were streamlined?



Mine are.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jul 14, 2022)

PAT303 said:


> That's the funniest thing I've heard for a while.



In a head-shaking, face-palm kind of way.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 14, 2022)

PAT303 said:


> That's the funniest thing I've heard for a while.


It played no part in any war, it was only produced to take part in post war air displays, modern crowds like the noise and the curvy wings.

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


----------



## PAT303 (Jul 14, 2022)

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> I would imagine that might increase drag and cause some C.O.G. issues.


If they pointed the end of them it would have helped reducing the drag.


----------



## SaparotRob (Jul 14, 2022)

PAT303 said:


> If they pointed the end of them it would have helped reducing the drag.
> View attachment 677606


That Barnes-Wallis came up with some crazy stuff.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Jul 14, 2022)

I'm imagining a BBQ and a few ale's with you blokes, the nieghbours would complain.

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


----------



## pbehn (Jul 14, 2022)

PAT303 said:


> That's the funniest thing I've heard for a while.


I believe it was also Galland who said that the only good thing about the Spitfire MkXIV was that there werent many of them.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Jul 14, 2022)

You can fit a lot of fuel in those logs though, I gather they made 240l slipper tanks inside of them which increased Spitfire range by 140,000 km. Then Barnes Wallis sussed out how to put a radar in one, enabling night log missions. Logs would be dropped in the English channel right in front of E boats... needless to say they were geodesic logs too which makes them 100 times stronger and lighter.

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


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Jul 14, 2022)

pbehn said:


> Its easy to forget or overlook the huge difference between The LW against the RAF in 1940 and the USAAF against the LW in early 1944. In 1940 BoB LW fighters outnumbered the RAF by around 2 to 1 in total numbers, but the RAF had to spread its resources to cover the whole coast. Locally in the Pas de Calais the RAF could call upon around 300 fighters while the LW had around 1000. Goering instructed all of them to stick to the bomber formation, which meant many turned back being short of fuel escorting bombers that were not in any danger over the Channel itself without actually seeing the RAF, while others had to turn back over London having burned their fuel off staying with a formation labouring into headwinds.



well just to be clear, i was talking about British / Commonwealth and later British / Commonwealth / American units in 1942-43, in the Med, not US units in 1944-45 in Northwest Europe

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Jul 14, 2022)

drgondog said:


> That would be an over simplification. Fighter pilots and fighter leaders were a spectrum of leadership and skills modifying 'doctrine' tactics as well as 'working within' an awkward doctrine. Most if not all the new guys probably chose the tactics you noted, or followed leaders initiating the attack. Experienced fighter pilots tended to do what worked for them. Unfortunately for those used to split Ess/dive issues of Spitfire or slow divers in Ost front, they were shcked many times (fatally) by high dive speeds of P-40 and P-38 in MTO - and really were educated by the P-47. Opinion - high percentage of experten killed vs P-47s atempted to dive to evade.
> 
> Egon Meyer for example, pioneered and led the dreaded Company front tactics against B-17s in fall/winter 1942. It started with assembling several miles in front of bomber stream, attacking with four to 8 Fw190s in shallow dive (i.e. 12 O'clock high), hit and split Ess. Galland modified to continue in shallow dive to gain speed and pull up without muchaltitude loss, and turn to ge out in front again. The point is that the LW pilots feared the B-17 formation firepowr and adapted.
> 
> ...



So your dad was an ace? That's pretty cool!

I can't say about 8th AF etc. but in the Med I think the Germans had learned that dives wouldn't work against P-40s very early on, as in late 1941. By the time P-47s arrived in Italy (I think mid to late 1943?) I am sure they knew the risks.

The standard German fighter tactic in the Med, where possible (as in they had enough E) was to dive down, attack, then climb away often in a climbing turn. If followed, their wingman would get the chaser(s).

I am not sure a P-38 was good at catching a Bf 109 or Fw 190 in a dive. P-51 and P-47 were I'm sure, probably Typhoon in the channel. P-40s could, usually. Maybe P-39?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jul 14, 2022)

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> You can fit a lot of fuel in those logs though, I gather they made 240l slipper tanks inside of them which increased Spitfire range by 140,000 km. Then Barnes Wallis sussed out how to put a radar in one, enabling night log missions. Logs would be dropped in the English channel right in front of E boats... needless to say they were geodesic logs too which makes them 100 times stronger and lighter.


The things one learns here.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 14, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> The things one learns here.


the question is how much does one have to unlearn

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


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Jul 14, 2022)

You've just got to make yourself geodesic, that way you can become stronger and lighter... and more flexible! That way the extra load doesn't weigh you down so much...

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jul 14, 2022)

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> I am not sure a P-38 was good at catching a Bf 109 or Fw 190 in a dive.



Oh, a P-38 could catch either in a dive. It could also win the race all the way to the ground.

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


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 14, 2022)

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> *So your dad was an ace? That's pretty cool!*
> 
> I can't say about 8th AF etc. but in the Med I think the Germans had learned that dives wouldn't work against P-40s very early on, as in late 1941. By the time P-47s arrived in Italy (I think mid to late 1943?) I am sure they knew the risks.
> 
> ...


If you want to know more about Bill's dad;






Bert W Marshal | American Air Museum







www.americanairmuseum.com













Bert Marshall - Recipient -


Growing up in Texas, Bert Marshall has been hailed as one of greatest quarterbacks in Texas High School history, and was the only 3 time All State Qua...




valor.militarytimes.com








A little simplistic - the biggest factor is "who sees who" first.

As we know, the P-38 did not do great in the ETO, a bit better in the Med. Consider tactics, training and many times a little luck.









Lightning Ace! P-38 legend Robin Olds - Flight Journal


Aviation History | History of Flight | Aviation History Articles, Warbirds, Bombers, Trainers, Pilots | Lightning Ace! P-38 legend Robin Olds




www.flightjournal.com

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


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Jul 14, 2022)

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> So your dad was an ace? That's pretty cool!
> 
> I can't say about 8th AF etc. but in the Med I think the Germans had learned that dives wouldn't work against P-40s very early on, as in late 1941. By the time P-47s arrived in Italy (I think mid to late 1943?) I am sure they knew the risks.
> 
> ...



Hey @dragondog somebody filled me in on who your dad was, I certainly meant no disrespect, that was actually my honest reaction up above. I gather you are an aviation writer too so obviously take my opinions on German tactics, P-38 diving abilities with a grain of salt. 

Just read about one of your father's exploits he sounds like quite a guy.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 14, 2022)

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> I gather you are an aviation writer too


Bill has written a few things here and there...

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## NevadaK (Jul 14, 2022)

A slightly longer biography:



http://www.p51pilots.com/P51-Pilots.cfm?c=incp51BiographyHome.cfm&viewmode=BIO&pilotid=558&p=P-51%20Mustang%20Pilot%20Bert%20Wilder%20Marshall,%20Jr

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


----------



## ThomasP (Jul 15, 2022)

re roll rate of the Spitfire IX/XIV vs Tempest II/V

Clayton Magnet is correct in his post#315. The Spitfire rolls better than the Tempest at <300 mph IAS according to the chart.

Sorry, I misread the chart  - the copy I have is very faint and grainy.

I have edited my post#300 to correct the information.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 15, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> If you want to know more about Bill's dad;
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Nice finds Joe. Two things about the Olds excerpts. 

Dad graduated 41-A and was immediately assigned as IP, then soon after took more and more responsibility in Training Command. He had the same degree of hatred of Training Command as Olds and successively volunteered for assignment to AVG, then any combat assignment with fighters, Finally he volunteered and was accepted to a squadron of B-26s training for ETO in mid 1943. He loved the airplane but fighters was his goal. Allegedly he got out of 26s by claiming he was too short to get traction on the rudder pedals. The CO had mercy on him - and he was assigned to Advanced Fighter School and then to ETO.

The second thing is that dad was leading 354FS on the 14th of August and he spotted the P-38 shootdown near Montmiral - a loner, but he recognized 479th. He called Zemke after return and verbally confirmed the score. Not in that excerpt was that he was having butt chewed by Zemke for being 'off chasing' alone. That is how dad and Robin ultimately 'met' after Korea when both were 'stuck' at Pentagon and swappng lies.

Notably the 479th had the best air to air record of any of the P-38FG in ETO/MTO, and most of the other 8th AF FG's, in context of ratio of VCs to losses in air combat. IMO the difference was a.) immediate assignment of P-38J-15 with all of serious high altitude bugs worked out, and b.) Zemke.

Robin Olds was the most impressive pilot I ever met - not just because of his flying and combat skills, but simply his command presence and demeanor - when he walked into a room, every eyeball swiveled over to observe the entrance. There was just something I couldn't describe - but he was awesome.

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


----------



## Geoffrey Sinclair (Jul 16, 2022)

Macandy said:


> Logistics on D Day were critical, and you wanted gun tanks to support the infantry breaking out off the beaches - and the 75mm gun was a much better support gun.
> Tanks didn't often fight tanks contrary to popular belief.


Early War German doctrine was to try and avoid tank duels, the US army did the same, the trouble for the allies was the Germans were changing, the Panther was primarily an anti tank weapon. The mark IV gun upgrades.

As Ewen has pointed out the decision to delay the deployment of 76mm and 105mm Shermans was an unwillingness to disrupt the assault and follow up unit preparations, including their internal supply system. The US had independent tank battalions to do the support function, as far as I know few to no 76mm Shermans served in them, 19 battalions in Britain along with 5 armoured divisions end May 1944. 2nd Armoured went to France on 9 June, 3rd on 22 June, 4th on 13 July, 6th on 19 July and 5th on 25 July. The 2nd and 3rd were the ones needing replacement tanks June/July. On 15th of August there were no reserves of Shermans, tanks earmarked as replacements for units arriving later were issued.

It means apart from disruption to assault units there was the US armoured warfare doctrine against the 76mm Shermans.

Changing US Army ETO ideas on tanks
Pre invasion told of the 105mm gun Sherman and the new 90mm gun Pershing the theatre requested 4 105mm to 1 90mm gun tanks.
On 11th October the theatre alters its request to a 2 to 1 ratio in favour of the Sherman.
In early January 1945 the theatre alters its request to a 4 to 1 ratio in favour of the Pershing.

Initial Firefly issue was 1 per troop of 5, but by December the 21st Army Group had 1,168 Sherman 75mm gun tanks and 605 Sherman 17-pdr gun tanks.

The average ETO tank engagement range was around 800 yards which helped reduce the German AP performance superiority.



Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> They also didn't issue the HVAP (improved AP) ammunition as much to the Tank battalions whereas the TDs got a bit more of it (though not as much as they could have had).


Then there is the ammunition, a quote,

"In AT use the initial design of the M1 76mm cartridge and projectile were found to have many defects. The propellent of the cartridge failed to burn cleanly or completely, resulting in excessive flash. The standard hardness accepted for the M68 APC round was actually grossly inferior to what was required, which resulted in projectiles shattering on impact or being deformed and glancing off (a common problem at the time). By 1945 most of these problems had been corrected

The US 76mm APCR/HVAP lost energy much quicker than the British Sabot design, but it was noted in testing as being the "most accurate" tank gun round fired. Unfortunately it was available in very small lots, serial production not beginning until July and August 1944 (3" and 76mm T4E17 respectively) with just 33,000 3" and 63,000 76mm round being produced. Few US tank units got any significant number of HVAP and most never saw a single round until spring 1945. That tested near Isigny in August 1944 on three Panthers was flown directly from the US for the test. In contrast, 6-pdr APDS was available by June 1944 and 17-pdr (albeit with faults) by August."

First versus third army M4 losses, showing some differences, even allowing for the losses in the Ardennes.

First army, for the campaign the average 75mm M4 strength was 651, losses were 1,353, or about 208% of average strength. For the period from 20 July onwards the average 75mm M4 strength is 630, with 1,070 losses, or 170% of average strength. This can be compared to the 76mm M4, for July 20 onwards, average strength of 275, with 307 losses or 112% of average strength. Meaning the 75mm version is suffering a loss rate of around 150% of the 76mm gun version.

Third army, from 1 August 1944, for the campaign the average 75mm M4 strength was 569, losses were 630, or about 111% of average strength. For the period from 19 August onwards the average strength was 574, with 494 losses, or 86% of average strength. This can be compared to the 76mm M4, for August 19 onwards, average strength of 209, with 431 losses or 206% of average strength. Meaning the 75mm version is suffering a loss rate of around 42% of the 76mm gun version.



pbehn said:


> In 1940 BoB LW fighters outnumbered the RAF by around 2 to 1 in total numbers, but the RAF had to spread its resources to cover the whole coast. Locally in the Pas de Calais the RAF could call upon around 300 fighters while the LW had around 1000. Goering instructed all of them to stick to the bomber formation,


If you look for example at Alfred Price's Battle of Britain Day the German bomber formations had "free hunt" Bf109 units sweeping ahead. In addition the way RAF fighter pilots would ignore orders and pursue over the channel, plus the raids the RAF ran on German airfields meant the Luftwaffe kept some fighters for withdrawal cover and local protection. It is also interesting one plot of 15 September RAF fighter courses has many of them ending up behind the bombers before attacking, staying clear of the "free hunt" fighters. Goering's order increased the number of close escorts, it did not force all the Luftwaffe fighters to use the tactic.

One unpleasant result for the Luftwaffe on 15 September 1940 was the large number of bombers shot down, despite having several fighters per bomber. The close escort order handicapped the Jagdwaffe but the force was not able to keep bomber losses to an acceptable level even before the order and that continued. Easy to blame Goering instead of a general failure to devise suitable tactics.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Jul 16, 2022)

Geoffrey Sinclair said:


> One unpleasant result for the Luftwaffe on 15 September 1940 was the large number of bombers shot down, despite having several fighters per bomber. The close escort order handicapped the Jagdwaffe but the force was not able to keep bomber losses to an acceptable level even before the order and that continued. Easy to blame Goering instead of a general failure to devise suitable tactics.


The bombers were the RAF's primary target and Parks primary tactic was to engage the 109's ''peeling away'' the escort leaving them venerable, the Luftwaffe commanders blamed the pilots, the pilots blamed the commanders instead of working out a feasible solution.


----------



## Macandy (Jul 19, 2022)

pbehn said:


> I always wondered why only 20,000 were made thanks for the info.
> 
> In fact the Spitfire was a peacetime design, if war hadnt been declared it would have been produced in numbers like the Gloster Gladiator 747 and replaced by the Typhoon and Tornado, that was the plan anyway.




Look at the insanely complex wing spar of a Spitfire - an engineering delight, a manufacturing nightmare.












Manufacturing times:

Spitfire: 13,000 man hours
Hurricane: 5,200 man hours
*Bf 109: 4,000 man hours*


----------



## pbehn (Jul 19, 2022)

Macandy said:


> Look at the insanely complex wing spar of a Spitfire - an engineering delight, a manufacturing nightmare.
> 
> View attachment 678409
> View attachment 678410
> ...


discussed here The man-hour battle: the cost of production, Spitfire, bf-109 and ???


----------



## PAT303 (Jul 19, 2022)

Macandy said:


> Spitfire: 13,000 man hours
> Hurricane: 5,200 man hours
> *Bf 109: 4,000 man hours*


The Spitfire was made in many marks, low/high altitude fighters, Photo recon, fighter bombers, recon, had different guns/cannons, could be used on carriers, had many different engines and was a peer fighter throughout the war, the other two didn't have that record. Ultimately it doesn't matter that it took twice as many man hours to make than the Hurricane, for twice as many manufacturing hours you get a plane that's five times better, without the Spit England couldn't win.


----------



## pbehn (Jul 19, 2022)

PAT303 said:


> The Spitfire was made in many marks, low/high altitude fighters, Photo recon, fighter bombers, recon, had different guns/cannons, could be used on carriers, had many different engines and was a peer fighter throughout the war, the other two didn't have that record. Ultimately it doesn't matter that it took twice as many man hours to make than the Hurricane, for twice as many manufacturing hours you get a plane that's five times better, without the Spit England couldn't win.


You could turn the discussion on its head. If, by August 1940 the British were producing twice as many single engined fighters as the Germans, dispite this huge disparity in ease of production, then Goering deserved to lose, for not taking the subject seriously.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jul 19, 2022)

Rather like cost comparisons, it can be challenging to find direct correlation between labour hours to build an aircraft. What gets included in figures for one airframe/country may be excluded for another. 

We also must be careful about the source of such figures. It's entirely possible that someone selected the hours required to construct the first few prototypes of one airframe and late-war production figures for another just to make a shock comparison that, actually, isn't relevant.

Finally, just because an airframe took fewer hours to assemble does not mean that a quality product came out at the end (equally, a high number of hours may not result in a quality airframe either). However, within good production engineering and quality control practices, there is an irreducible minimum number of hours it takes to build a quality product, whether that's a toaster or a Tornado (other swing wing fast jets are available).

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


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Jul 19, 2022)

pbehn said:


> You could turn the discussion on its head. If, by August 1940 the British were producing twice as many single engined fighters as the Germans, dispite this huge disparity in ease of production, then Goering deserved to lose, for not taking the subject seriously.


Assuming you can train double the number of pilots, and double the infrastructure and provide double the amount of consumables


----------



## PAT303 (Jul 19, 2022)

It's 1942, what would you rather have, one MkIX Spitfire or two MkII Hurricanes?.


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Jul 19, 2022)

PAT303 said:


> It's 1942, what would you rather have, one MkIX Spitfire or two MkII Hurricanes?.


How long would you have the 2 Hurricanes.


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Jul 19, 2022)

Reluctant Poster said:


> Assuming you can train double the number of pilots, and double the infrastructure and provide double the amount of consumables


I think I misunderstood your post.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 19, 2022)

I would love to find out when the man hour studies were done.
The notion that the man hours per airframe stayed the same throughout the war despite different factories, different versions, different engines and no change in learning curve boggles the mind. 

Not saying that the Spitfire was ever easier to build than the 109, Just that staying at over a 3 to 1 ratio for 5-6 years seems rather unbelievable. Germans sometimes had 5-6 different (more?) factories making 109s. ALL took the same man hours to built them? 
What was the point of building Castle Bromwich if it couldn't speed up production?

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


----------



## 33k in the air (Jul 19, 2022)

PAT303 said:


> It's 1942, what would you rather have, one MkIX Spitfire or two MkII Hurricanes?.



That depends — what's the mission?

If it's air superiority, the Spitfire. If it's ground attack/interdiction work, the two Hurricanes.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jul 19, 2022)

33k in the air said:


> That depends — what's the mission?
> 
> If it's air superiority, the Spitfire. If it's ground attack/interdiction work, the two Hurricanes.



Plus, two Hurris can be in two places, while one Spit cannot. It really depends.


----------



## PAT303 (Jul 19, 2022)

Reluctant Poster said:


> How long would you have the 2 Hurricanes.


Against an FW190 not long.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Geoffrey Sinclair (Jul 20, 2022)

Macandy said:


> Manufacturing times:
> 
> Spitfire: 13,000 man hours
> Hurricane: 5,200 man hours
> *Bf 109: 4,000 man hours*


So where did the figures come from? Are they meant to be airframes only, or complete aircraft? As of early 1939 the German export prices for ordering 201 or more airframes were Bf109E 70,000 RM each, Bf110C 140,000, He111 205,000, HS126 85,000, Ju52 118,000, Ju87B 88,000 Ju88A 167,000. So if the Bf109E really did take 4,000 man hours either it was being sold at super profit levels or all German airframes were similarly economical to build. If you wanted complete Bf109E then ordering 201 or more would cost you $130,000 RM each. Engines quoted at 47,000 RM.

The basic rule is the longer the production run the more tooling can be used. Hawker were given an initial contract for twice the number as Supermarine and had been building larger numbers or aircraft for years. Ford discovered aircraft have small production runs and large numbers of modifications, making it hard to do their idea of tooling economically.

Firstly a diversion, Liberty ships were relatively low technology, built using well established methods by multiple yards, The 2,648 Emergency Cargo (Liberty) cost an average of $1,827,000 each. In terms of the ship yards, the following applies, table is ship yard, ships delivered, average cost,

Alabama / 20 / 1,958,000
Bethlehem-Fairfield / 361 / 1,755,000
California / 306 / 1,858,000
Delta / 128 / 1,939,000
Jones-Brunswick / 85 / 1,993,000
Jones-Panama City / 66 / 2,020,000
Kaiser-Vancouver / 2 / 2,703,000
Marinship / 15 / 3,012,000
New England / 228 / 1,892,000
North Carolina / 126 / 1,544,000
Oregon / 330 / 1,643,000
Permanente-Richmond #1 / 138 / 1,875,000
Permanente-Richmond #2 / 351 / 1,667,000
Rheem / 1 / 7,191,000
St Johns / 82 / 2,099,000
Southeastern / 88 / 2,043,000
Todd-Houston / 208 / 1,833,000
Walsh-Kaiser / 10 / 3,923,000

Firstly showing the advantages of mass production but also the efficiencies of the different yards. If you take a minimum of 50 ships delivered as the cut off point then average costs vary between 1.5 and 2.1 million dollars each. 

Much of the cost of an aircraft is non airframe, engines etc. So as of 31 July 1944, costs, weighted average of all contracts, airframe cost, percentage of total cost.

TypeAirframe%costTypeAirframe%costB-29$ 478,18063.17​C-48$ 91,22967.71​B-32$ 540,30570.52​C-49$104,87072.24​B-17$ 157,48457.91​C-50$ 97,27372.86​B-24$ 169,45260.00​C-51$100,68976.18​B-25$ 93,69056.46​C-52$105,05273.46​B-26$ 140,73558.03​C-53$107,12474.03​B-34$ 108,55857.66​C-60$ 91,97875.06​A-20$ 75,44860.69​C-76$135,48978.53​A-26$ 112,26456.75​C-82$427,24489.47​A-28$ 91,49972.95​C-45$ 39,66759.81​A-29$ 89,26270.12​C-78$ 16,81849.76​A-30$ 110,58672.14​C-43$ 18,68770.02​A-24$ 35,92263.66​C-61$ 7,61155.77​A-25$ 67,49268.66​C-64$ 26,33671.37​A-31$ 65,85272.96​AT-7$ 43,50463.94​A-35$ 56,16668.26​AT-8$ 25,64661.50​A-36 (P-51)$ 36,70660.97​AT-9$ 27,92762.64​P-38$ 73,60763.63​AT-10$ 26,88661.57​P-59$ 128,96160.55​AT-11$ 47,42959.16​P-61$ 191,83164.50​AT-17$ 20,96864.44​P-70$ 79,86555.82​AT-18$ 83,89069.33​P-82$ 86,54065.38​AT-21$ 62,38161.91​P-39$ 32,82451.05​AT-6$ 14,18852.84​P-40$ 29,51552.74​AT-19$ 22,79367.59​P-47$ 61,69958.48​BT-12$ 29,15968.87​P-51$ 28,98449.26​BT-13$ 12,65751.90​P-63$ 28,55148.95​BT-15$ 13,74157.43​P-72$ 153,67285.61​PT-13$ 6,05455.21​P-75$ 83,58561.73​PT-17$ 5,75660.93​F-3 (A-20)$ 103,62763.58​PT-18$ 5,94360.53​O-52$ 24,55857.73​PT-19$ 7,34064.71​OA-10 (PBY)$ 158,94171.34​PT-23$ 10,63270.80​C-54$ 262,50175.16​PT-26$ 9,66867.19​C-69$ 534,33181.31​L-1$ 18,34172.15​C-74$ 949,74087.26​L-5$ 6,76370.40​C-87$ 196,47473.56​R-4$ 46,82691.55​C-46$ 197,63974.71​R-5$ 50,58683.65​C-47$ 73,74962.49​R-6$ 41,14285.73​

The US did a lot of measuring, with airframe build efficiency in WWII it seems productivity followed a curve that said it took 16 to 18 man hours per pound of aircraft for the first production example, dropping to around 7 man hours by aircraft 10, 3 by aircraft 100, 1.2 by aircraft 1000 and 0.52 man hours per airframe pound by aircraft 10,000. Now name a US production line that actually turned out 10,000 aircraft of the same design.

British figures. Cost of 201st production aircraft, estimated man hours, Lancaster 74,319, Halifax 98,246, Stirling 129,944. As of 22 December 1941 a Hurricane IId was estimated to take 19,560 man hours, a Spitfire Vc as of 23 April 1942 19,086 man hours. The early estimate for the Hawker Typhoon had 28,756 man hours using present methods and 22,349 man hours using full advantage of best available manufacturing methods. In May 1942 a Lancaster was estimated to cost 84,800 pounds ready to be sent to a combat unit, a Stirling in June 1942 140,800 pounds. In March 1941 4 Hurricanes "absorbed from Dominion orders" were costed at 8,500 pounds each, the proposed Spitfire order had a unit cost of 10,123 pounds each, the proposed Typhoon order 16,700 pounds, Lancaster 44,500 pounds, and the Oxfords at 7,200 pounds each.

Figures from Buying Aircraft by Halley,

There was a real trade off between production line changes and modification centre effort, to install a P-38 wing fuel tank on the line took under an hour, in a modification centre 300 hours. At one time one small aircraft design took 9,000 hours to build and 8,000 hours in the modification centre. In the end 25 to 50% of the man hours turning out military aircraft were performed at the modification centres. Nearly all bombers and transports needed modification, along with 30 to 50% of fighters. Some 58,741 AAF aircraft were reworked.

Time and dollar costs encountered while making 73 modifications to a group of 1,000 P-38,
P-38F-5, 10,450 engineering hours, 6,200 tooling hours, $4,650
P-38G-1, 23,250 engineering hours, 23,760 tooling hours, $18,000
P-38G-3 to 5, 5,000 engineering hours, 4,000 tooling hours, $3,000
P-38G-10, 19,200 engineering hours, 18,480 tooling hours, $13,800

B-25 direct engineering hours to give an idea on how often design change actually was
1940 - 329,415 hours
1941 - 419,060 hours
1942 - 695,488 hours
1943 - 461,213 hours
1944 - 200,321 hours

Ford Willow run began production in September 1942, as of January 1943 it took 5.03 direct man hours per pound of airframe accepted, it was 2.52 in February and 1.03 in May, 0.56 in January and May 1944, and 0.32 in September 1944.

Republic Farmingdale in January 1943 had a ratio of 3.82 direct man hours per pound of airframe accepted, that was down to 1.9 in May 1943, and 1.02 in September 1944, it then spiked to 1.61 in December 1944. Hello M and N models.

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


----------



## NevadaK (Jul 20, 2022)

PAT303 said:


> It's 1942, what would you rather have, one MkIX Spitfire or two MkII Hurricanes?.


Ummm, if nobody wants it I'll take the Corsair over there...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MikeMeech (Jul 20, 2022)

Hi

Here are David Edgerton's comments reference 'Comparative Productivity' from his book 'Britain's War Machine':















Mike

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


----------



## MikeMeech (Jul 20, 2022)

NevadaK said:


> Ummm, if nobody wants it I'll take the Corsair over there...


Hi

Unless you are British and find that the Corsair is not going to be available until June 1943, then to shoot at the enemy you will need Spitfire IX and Hurricanes II aircraft. Even more problematic is the Mustang P-51B which does not arrive for the RAF until December 1943. For 1942 the most 'useless' aircraft, no matter how good, are ones that do not arrive until later in the war.

Mike

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


----------



## NevadaK (Jul 20, 2022)

MikeMeech said:


> Hi
> 
> Unless you are British and find that the Corsair is not going to be available until June 1943, then to shoot at the enemy you will need Spitfire IX and Hurricanes II aircraft. Even more problematic is the Mustang P-51B which does not arrive for the RAF until December 1943. For 1942 the most 'useless' aircraft, no matter how good, are ones that do not arrive until later in the war.
> 
> Mike


My wife doesn’t get my humor either.

I was just making reference to the thread title.


----------



## GregP (Jul 20, 2022)

Shortround6 said:


> I would love to find out when the man hour studies were done.
> The notion that the man hours per airframe stayed the same throughout the war despite different factories, different versions, different engines and no change in learning curve boggles the mind.
> 
> Not saying that the Spitfire was ever easier to build than the 109, Just that staying at over a 3 to 1 ratio for 5-6 years seems rather unbelievable. Germans sometimes had 5-6 different (more?) factories making 109s. ALL took the same man hours to built them?
> What was the point of building Castle Bromwich if it couldn't speed up production?



One more factory making the same thing always speeds up production. More places making Spitfires means more Spitfires.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Jul 20, 2022)

Macandy said:


> Look at the insanely complex wing spar of a Spitfire - an engineering delight, a manufacturing nightmare.
> 
> View attachment 678409
> View attachment 678410
> ...


And just to add, I remember reading about the guys that restore aircraft and one of them was talking about the Corsair, apparently the wing spar on it is the most expensive time consuming and exact part of the whole aircraft.





F4U corsair wing spar drawings


l am looking for drawings for the wing spar for the corsair. Is there any to be had? thanks




www.arcforums.com


----------



## pbehn (Jul 20, 2022)

GregP said:


> One more factory making the same thing always speeds up production. More places making Spitfires means more Spitfires.


In 1940 Spitfires were made in the Southampton area in a dispersed production system to avoid being bombed and in a custom made shadow factory at Castle Bromwich, it isnt possible for these two systems to use the same man hours to produce the same thing, if they did, "mass production" systems dont work.


----------



## EwenS (Jul 21, 2022)

pbehn said:


> In 1940 Spitfires were made in the Southampton area in a dispersed production system to avoid being bombed and in a custom made shadow factory at Castle Bromwich, it isnt possible for these two systems to use the same man hours to produce the same thing, if they did, "mass production" systems dont work.


The story of the dispersal of Supermarine dispersal of production and the difficulties of achieving it are detailed here.








The Dispersal (1940-1941)


Although a partial dispersal of Spitfire production had begun before the German raids of 24th and 26th September 1940 this had been limited to a few locations in Southampton. Following the raids th…




supermariners.wordpress.com

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Macandy (Jul 21, 2022)

PAT303 said:


> And just to add, I remember reading about the guys that restore aircraft and one of them was talking about the Corsair, apparently the wing spar on it is the most expensive time consuming and exact part of the whole aircraft.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




However, it was like all parts on the Corsair designed for mass production (lots of spot welding) and it gives the Corsair its astonishing strength and the perfect airframe to wing transition reducing drag.

However, its not really a valid comparison to compare the F4U Corsair with aircraft like the Spitfire, Hurricane and Bf 109. 
They were relatively simple interwar propellor fighter designs, the F4U was at the pinnacle of piston engined fighter design and a much more complex and high performance beast.

In its final AU-1 form, the Corsair was hefting a bomb load of up to 8,200lbs - that's a bomb load significantly more than the gross maximum take off weight off a Spitfire or Bf 109.

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


----------



## yulzari (Jul 21, 2022)

PAT303 said:


> , without the Spit England couldn't win.


England could not win anyway, not having an Air Force.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Macandy (Jul 21, 2022)

PAT303 said:


> The Spitfire was made in many marks, low/high altitude fighters, Photo recon, fighter bombers, recon, had different guns/cannons, could be used on carriers, had many different engines and was a peer fighter throughout the war, the other two didn't have that record. Ultimately it doesn't matter that it took twice as many man hours to make than the Hurricane, for twice as many manufacturing hours you get a plane that's five times better, without the Spit England couldn't win.




Except;

The Spitfire wasn't '5 times' better than a Hurricane, let alone a Bf 109. 
Production was a constant headache with the not a thought put into making it in quantity Spitfire.

More kills in the BoB went the Hurricane, and despite the modern aviation 'experts' decrying it, the Polish pilots found it more than good enough to hack down the Bf 109

Britain didn't have to win, it just had to not lose. Even if the Luftwaffe had established air supercity over the Channel coast, all it had to do was pull back to its bases north of the Thames and carry on.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 21, 2022)

Macandy said:


> However, it was like all parts on the Corsair designed for mass production (lots of spot welding) and it gives the Corsair its astonishing strength and the perfect airframe to wing transition reducing drag.
> 
> However, its not really a valid comparison to compare the F4U Corsair with aircraft like the Spitfire, Hurricane and Bf 109.
> They were relatively simple interwar propellor fighter designs, the F4U was at the pinnacle of piston engined fighter design and a much more complex and high performance beast.
> ...


Hmm, the Spit XIV and 109K were not only less complex but also high performance. Ditto P-51. Also the word 'interval' is curious as both the Spit and Bf 109 Evolved. And to 'at the pinnacle of piston engine fighter design', where below the 'pinnacle' do you rank the P-51H, F8F, F7F, Ta 152, or even the F6F? AU1 was faster than AD but otherwise inferior as a CAS, multi role attack aircraft - and woefully short on air to air capability than the others listed above.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jul 21, 2022)

Macandy said:


> In its final AU-1 form, the Corsair was hefting a bomb load of up to 8,200lbs - that's a bomb load significantly more than the gross maximum take off weight off a Spitfire or Bf 109.



Err...which Spitfire? The Spit Mk 24 had a max t/o weight of 9,900 lb, while the Seafire Mk 47 weighed in at 12,530 lb. Not bad for a design that, in its original form, had an empty weight of just 4,306 lb.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 21, 2022)

Macandy said:


> It was a designer's pet project, but paid no head to the need to be producible, supportable or able to operate under Auster circumstances.





Macandy said:


> However, it was like all parts on the Corsair designed for mass production (lots of spot welding) and it gives the Corsair its astonishing strength and the perfect airframe to wing transition reducing drag.


There were 20,000+ variants of the Spitfire (designers pet project) while only 12,500 variants of the F4U Corsair (waste of blue paint and Malcolm hood, bomb truck).

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


----------



## PAT303 (Jul 21, 2022)

Macandy said:


> In its final AU-1 form, the Corsair was hefting a bomb load of up to 8,200lbs - that's a bomb load significantly more than the gross maximum take off weight off a Spitfire or Bf 109.


I'd like to know what was taken out for a corsair to carry that load.


----------



## PAT303 (Jul 21, 2022)

Macandy said:


> The Spitfire wasn't '5 times' better than a Hurricane,


Yes it was, an FW190 would treat a Hurri like a kiddies toy in a fight, you needed a Spitfire and even then a MkIX with the Merlin 66 to really be equal. As much as I like it it was a design dead end and obsolete compared to the other three.


----------



## PAT303 (Jul 21, 2022)

Macandy said:


> However, it was like all parts on the Corsair designed for mass production (lots of spot welding) and it gives the Corsair its astonishing strength and the perfect airframe to wing transition reducing drag.


So the Spitfire's wing spar was a manufacturers nightmare but the far more complex and labor intensive Corsairs wasn't?.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Jul 21, 2022)

drgondog said:


> And to 'at the pinnacle of piston engine fighter design', where below the 'pinnacle' do you rank the P-51H, F8F, F7F, Ta 152, or even the F6F? AU1 was faster than AD but otherwise inferior as a CAS, multi role attack aircraft - and woefully short on air to air capability than the others listed above.


What about the piston fighters that were cancelled because of jets, the Spiteful Mk14-16, the Martin Baker MB5 or Westland Wyvern?, the P47 had some interesting high dash models that were never put into production.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 21, 2022)

Macandy said:


> More kills in the BoB went the Hurricane, and despite the* modern aviation 'experts'* decrying it, the Polish pilots found it more than good enough to hack down the Bf 109.



Modern experts and even experts of the time recognize that there were almost twice as many Hurricanes flying at any time than Spitfires. The Spitfire was better, it just wasn't twice as good in 1940 which is what you need to get twice as many kills. 
The Hurricane was hitting a wall, it needed more power to get the same increase in performance. 

And once again there are unanswered questions. 
There were 5 different Spitfire wings, some had minor changes, some had larger changes (this does not count the tip changes as you could modify most (all?) of the wings to any wing tip you wanted. And nobody has answered what the build time was in Southampton in 1939 vs the build time time in Southampton in 1944 vs the build time in Castle Bromwich in 1941 vs the build time in Castle Bromwich in 1944. 

And here: Concise Guide To Spitfire Wing Types — Variants & Technology | Reference

we have the following
"
*C type*Called "universal wing", this wing was structurally modified to reduce labour and manufacturing time and allow mixed armament options; A or B type armament or a new, yet heavier combination of four 20 mm Hispano cannon.

The undercarriage mountings were redesigned and the undercarriage doors were bowed in cross section allowing the legs to sit lower in the wells, eliminating the upper-wing blisters over the wheel wells and landing gear pivot points"

doesn't say by how much anything was changed. 

My father used to help design jigs and fixtures for M-16 rifles in the 1960s, a rather simple device compared to an airplane. At one point there were 3 companies building M-16s in the 60s. Once company was getting twice as much per rifle as Colt was. I don't know the man hours. Some politician wanted to investigate Colt for excessive profits and not the company making twice as much per rifle. 

Curtiss prices per P-40 changed with every model/contract. Be very careful what you are comparing. The original P-40 contract included all kinds of extra "Stuff".
The 1939 contract for 524 airplanes was actually for 560 airframes, only 524 were to be completed, the remainder were in spare parts. One airframe was completed as a skeleton (no skin) for instruction. Also included were parts manuals/catalogs and all kinds of documentation. You cannot divide the 524 aircraft into the contract price and get the cost per airplane.

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


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 21, 2022)

PAT303 said:


> What about the piston fighters that were cancelled because of jets, the Spiteful Mk14-16, the Martin Baker MB5 or Westland Wyvern?, the P47 had some interesting high dash models that were never put into production.



The actual high point of Corsair was the F4U-5. The AU-1 was more of a monkey model in modern terms. It used a single stage two speed supercharger and had very poor high altitude performance for a post war aircraft.

It also wasn't going to fly very far carrying the claimed war load.
It may very well have been listed in documentation, however this web site : https://alternatewars.com/SAC/AU-1_Corsair_SAC_-_1_June_1953.pdf

shows an empty weight of 9,835lbs
basic weight of 10,600
max weight of 19,400lbs from a field
max weight of 18,500lbs for a catapult launch.

It does say 8,200lbs for max ordnance but................

19,400lbs
-8,200lbs
11,200lbs
-10,600lbs
600lbs

You have 600lbs for the pilot, fuel, oil and ammo for the 20mm guns and a few extras

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


----------



## PAT303 (Jul 21, 2022)

Shortround6 said:


> The actual high point of Corsair was the F4U-5. The AU-1 was more of a monkey model in modern terms. It used a single stage two speed supercharger and had very poor high altitude performance for a post war aircraft.
> 
> It also wasn't going to fly very far carrying the claimed war load.
> It may very well have been listed in documentation, however this web site : https://alternatewars.com/SAC/AU-1_Corsair_SAC_-_1_June_1953.pdf
> ...


Hence my point as to what was left out to carry the claimed bomb load, the pilots aren't going to be happy needing to have a poo and skipping breakfast for an extra liter or two of fuel.

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


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 21, 2022)

Gliding back to base like an ME 163 was probably not high on the pilots happy list either 😅

Reactions: Funny Funny:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Jul 22, 2022)

PAT303 said:


> What about the piston fighters that were cancelled because of jets, the Spiteful Mk14-16, the Martin Baker MB5 or Westland Wyvern?, the P47 had some interesting high dash models that were never put into production.


The XP-51G and XP-47J were cancelled because there were no requirements for mid-range escort or interceptor that late in the war for AAF. That was the reason NAA devloped the P-51H to replace the P-51D - but still retain P-51D range but dramatically improve performance. That said, it took nearly 8 mo to solve 1650-9 WI/Boost issues to achieve design performance for the new enine.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jul 22, 2022)

Macandy said:


> However, it was like all parts on the Corsair designed for mass production (lots of spot welding) and it gives the Corsair its astonishing strength and the perfect airframe to wing transition reducing drag.
> 
> However, its not really a valid comparison to compare the F4U Corsair with aircraft like the Spitfire, Hurricane and Bf 109.
> They were relatively simple interwar propellor fighter designs, the F4U was at the pinnacle of piston engined fighter design and a much more complex and high performance beast.
> ...


I think it's totally valid to compare the Corsair to the Spitfire, considering that they both served side by side (along with the F6F) in the same theater against the same foe for some time:









Armoured Aircraft Carriers


The British Pacific Fleet Task Force 57 Politics & Logistics: Sakishima Gunto, Okinawa Campaign, 1945




www.armouredcarriers.com





Also, I don't see the Corsair capable of doing the Lightning or Thunderbolt's job of high altitude escort of heavy bombers into the most hotly contested airspace of WWII, let alone able to do the Mustang's job. Nor do I see it having the ability to escort B-29's to Tokyo (hello P-51D and P-47N) and back... just an observation on my part. Mind you, the Iow Jima Mustangs were NOT much different (they did have the "UNCLE/DOG" system installed) than the P-51D marques that had been escorting Eighth AF heavies a year earlier.

I DO however see the P-38, P-47 and P-51 able to do the Corsairs job (albeit NOT from a carrier, I'll give you that) in the Pacific. One can argue that a P-40 was just about able to accomplish what the F4U was capable of in 1943 - 1944. In fact, I'd have to check but I think the RNZAF kept their P-40's in to 1945 before finally switching to the F4U.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## EwenS (Jul 22, 2022)

The first RNZAF squadrons became operational on the F4U in May 1944.


----------



## GregP (Jul 22, 2022)

PAT303 said:


> Yes it was, an FW190 would treat a Hurri like a kiddies toy in a fight, you needed a Spitfire and even then a MkIX with the Merlin 66 to really be equal. As much as I like it it was a design dead end and obsolete compared to the other three.



No, it wasn't. You might recall that Hurricanes shot down more airplanes than Spitfires did in the Battle of Britain. The Hurricane was a good fighter that started the war OK, but rapidly became "on the slow side." That didn't mean it couldn't maneuver well and wasn't well-armed. It could and was.

The Fw 190 was a better fighter than the Hurricane, but that doesn't mean the Hurricanes didn't get in their licks. They did.

The Fw 190 was better than a Gladiator, too, but the Fw 190 would have trouble getting a Gladiator in its sights for long since the Gladiator would be WAY more maneuverable. That does not suggest anyone would rather have a squadron Gladiators over a squadron of Fw 190s; they wouldn't. But it DOES suggest that the Gladiator would be able to do some things that Fw 190 could not do. Ditto the Hurricane.

It surely wasn't going to out-roll an Fw 190. But a Focke-Wulf Fw 190 A-3 had a wing loading of about 43.6 pounds per square foot at 8,580 pounds gross weight. A Hurricane Mk IIb had a wing loading of 28.3 pounds per square foot at 7,300 pound gross weight. There is no way an Fw 190 was going to out-turn a Hurricane Mk IIb. Now, personally, I'd rather have the Fw 190. But the Hurricane wasn't exactly a kill when it got caught by an Fw 190, especially if the Hurricane saw the Fw 190 coming.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## NevadaK (Jul 22, 2022)

Peter Gunn said:


> I think it's totally valid to compare the Corsair to the Spitfire, considering that they both served side by side (along with the F6F) in the same theater against the same foe for some time:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The Corsair wasn't designed for long range escort and we shouldn't expect it to do so as well as aircraft designed for that mission, although the late model F4U5 did perform very well at altitude. On the other hand, I don't agree that the P-38, P-47, and P-51 performed the Corsair's job as well. From the results of the 1944 Joint Fighter Conference, the Corsair rated highest as a ground attack fighter and 2nd behind the P-47 in strafing. When you look at Corsair operations in the Pacific it was often flying quick turnaround close air support within 40 miles of the ground conflict from very short/unimproved airfields or carriers. Conditions where the Lightning, Mustang, and Thunderbolt wouldn't be able to operate at all.

Just my two cents.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Tkdog (Jul 22, 2022)

Almost like someone was assigning the different planes to missions where they could be most useful. Weird. 

I mean that kind of thinking is how you end up with crazy things like flying boats.

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


----------



## PAT303 (Jul 22, 2022)

GregP said:


> The Fw 190 was better than a Gladiator, too, but the Fw 190 would have trouble getting a Gladiator in its sights for long since the Gladiator would be WAY more maneuverable. That does not suggest anyone would rather have a squadron Gladiators over a squadron of Fw 190s; they wouldn't. But it DOES suggest that the Gladiator would be able to do some things that Fw 190 could not do. Ditto the Hurricane.


If that was the case the war would have ended in 1945 with the worlds air forces still flying 1940's aircraft, as for what the Gladiator could do that a FW190 couldn't, it could do really slow speed turns keeping out of the FW's sights until the FW pilot got bored and flew off or ran out of fuel, hardly a winning formula.


----------



## PAT303 (Jul 22, 2022)

GregP said:


> But the Hurricane wasn't exactly a kill when it got caught by an Fw 190, especially if the Hurricane saw the Fw 190 coming


Well the RAF got blooded in Leigh Mallory's ''leaning on the enemy'' farce using MkV's, how do you think the Hurricane would go considering it didn't have the speed to fight or the speed to run away, maybe it could join the Gladiator pilots doing slow speed turns and hope for the best?.


----------



## GregP (Jul 22, 2022)

No, it isn't the case. You are being deliberately obtuse.

The Fw 190 ws a better fighter than the Hurricane, but not so much better that it could afford to take a Hurricane lightly.

The Average Fw 190A was a 400 mph fighter only at max power and it's best altitude. The Hurricane II was about a 340 mph fighter at maxpower and best altitude, but both cruised around about 280 mph most of the time. In a pinch, the Fw 190 could accelerate, but not instantaneously. The Fw 190A climbed about 3,000 ft per min and the Hurricane Mk. II climbed about 2,780 ft per min. So, the Fw was a better climber, but not by enough to matter unless the dogfight developed somewhat. The Hurricane was going to out-turn the Fw 190, but could hang on its tail long enough to get in a good burst or two. Likewise, the Fw 190 could hang onto a Hurricane long enough for a good shot or two. But, neither one was going to hang onto the tail of the other for all that long. The Fw 190 could easily out-roll the Hurricane, but was never going to turn with it.

In the end, the Fw 190 could get away or reset and re-attack. The Hurricane could stand and fight, but was not going to catch an Fw 190 that was going 360+ mph. Neither had fuel for the fight to last long periods of time. In the end, the Fw 190 was a better offensive fighter and the Hurricane was pretty good holding its own over home territory. As the Fw 190 got further developed, it got better. By the time the Fw 190D came along, it was far and away a better fighter aircraft. Faster, better at rolling, cimbed better and had better armament. But the same situation existed as before ... neither was going to be able to hang onto the tail of the other. With much better armament, the Fw 190 needed only a hit to disable a Hurricane and the Hurricane needed several long bursts to do the same. I'd give the advantage to the Fw 190 easily, but you still could not take a Hurricane lightly. Any airborne and armed enemy fighter had a chance to kill you, especially if YOU made a mistake. Even in 1945, a Fiat CR.42 flown by a veteran would have been a tough opponent for a relatively green pilot in a Spitfire. Now, veteran on veteran, the better plane would certainly show up in the advantages it had in the performance and/or armament envelope.

But, unless you are a real newbie, you know that.


----------



## PAT303 (Jul 22, 2022)

GregP said:


> No, it isn't the case. You are being deliberately obtuse


No I'm not, the effect the FW brought to the air war directly caused the development of the MkIX Spit, the adoption of the 61 series Merlin and later the 66 series which was designed to give it's best performance at the FW's best altitude, such was it's domination, furthermore, the FW could be blamed for the lack of Spitfire development and the rush production of the interim models to counter it. To put an argument forward that the Hurricane could fight it is far fetched, like the A6M all it could hope for was that the superior aircrafts pilot was not aware or complacent if it found itself in a favorable position or silly enough to get it into a low speed turning fight, needing those types of situations to win is not a winning formula..


----------



## GregP (Jul 22, 2022)

Apparently you haven't spoken to many WWII vets of the ETO, and are looking at things from a modern view of better means WAY better. It doesn't. Better means better on average, not a sure kill.

Was the Fw 190 better? You bet it was. I'd take the Fw190 if given a choice. Mostly, you could not choose to fly the other side's airplanes.

Was it WAY better? Yes ... but perhaps not by as much as you might think.

Sorry Pat, it is shades of gray, not black and white.

Like the medieval knights may have said ... some days, the dragon wins.

But, I have no stake in your opinion of the relative merits of WWII fighters. Assume whatever you want to assume. Most of us do.

Saburo Sakai flew combat in the A6M Zero until 18 Aug 45. If anyone had encountered him in a supposedly-better fighter, they may have been VERY surprised how good a fight he could generate in his supposedly-obsolete fighter. On his last mission, he shot at and damaged a couple of B-32 Dominators. I bet THEY didn't believe he was incapable of a good attack because he flew a Zero.

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


----------



## SaparotRob (Jul 22, 2022)

Or missing an eye.

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


----------



## 33k in the air (Jul 23, 2022)

GregP said:


> Saburo Sakai flew combat in the A6M Zero until 18 Aug 45. If anyone had encountered him in a supposedly-better fighter, they may have been VERY surprised how good a fight he could generate in his supposedly-obsolete fighter. On his last mission, he shot at and damaged a couple of B-32 Dominators. I bet THEY didn't believe he was incapable of a good attack because he flew a Zero.



As Chuck Yeager said, "It's the man, not the machine."

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Jul 24, 2022)

GregP said:


> Saburo Sakai flew combat in the A6M Zero until 18 Aug 45. If anyone had encountered him in a supposedly-better fighter, they may have been VERY surprised how good a fight he could generate in his supposedly-obsolete fighter.


What about the other 99% of pilots, how did they fare flying the Zero in 1945? F6F-3 Hellcat.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Jul 24, 2022)

33k in the air said:


> As Chuck Yeager said, "It's the man, not the machine."


Lets put Yeager in a Hurricane and send him across the channel in 1942.


----------



## pbehn (Jul 24, 2022)

PAT303 said:


> Lets put Yeager in a Hurricane and send him across the channel in 1942.


Hurricanes were used at Dieppe. There were more Hurricanes and Mustang Is than Typhoons. It isnt the fault of the Hurricane that the Typhoon was a dud.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jul 24, 2022)

PAT303 said:


> Lets put Yeager in a Hurricane and send him across the channel in 1942.


All General Yeager would need is a baseball bat.

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


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Jul 24, 2022)

33k in the air said:


> As Chuck Yeager said, "It's the man, not the machine."


One of those glib comments that doesn’t hold up to close scrutiny. Obviously the machine is extraordinarily important. The history of war is full of examples of superior equipment being decisive in battle. Inferiority in equipment can be compensated for to some extent by skill but the disparity cannot be very great. Very few pilots have ability to become experten. They are not the norm. To take the exploits of a few exceptional pilots and extrapolate them to the performance of the bulk of pilots is not correct. An average pilot in a Hurricane is more likely to lose to an average pilot in an FW 190 than vice versa.
As for a Hurricane MkII vs an FW190 I would point out the the Spitfire V had a great deal of trouble with the FW 190 the Hurricane could only be worse.

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


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 24, 2022)

Reluctant Poster said:


> One of those glib comments that doesn’t hold up to close scrutiny. Obviously the machine is extraordinarily important. The history of war is full of examples of superior equipment being decisive in battle. Inferiority in equipment can be compensated for to some extent by skill but the disparity cannot be very great. Very few pilots have ability to become experten. They are not the norm. To take the exploits of a few exceptional pilots and extrapolate them to the performance of the bulk of pilots is not correct. An average pilot in a Hurricane is more likely to lose to an average pilot in an FW 190 than vice versa.
> As for a Hurricane MkII vs an FW190 I would point out the the Spitfire V had a great deal of trouble with the FW 190 the Hurricane could only be worse.


You also need to include tactics and operating as a cohesive unit rather than a lone individual. We always make comparisons within the one-on-one combat scenario but ignore the fact that many major aerial campaigns that involved fighter to fighter engagements were also decided when you had a well trained cohesive unit that developed tactics which exploited the opposition's weaknesses.

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


----------



## special ed (Jul 24, 2022)

Chuck Yeager said, The first time I saw a jet, I shot it down."

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


----------



## drgondog (Jul 24, 2022)

NevadaK said:


> The Corsair wasn't designed for long range escort and we shouldn't expect it to do so as well as aircraft designed for that mission, although the late model F4U5 did perform very well at altitude. On the other hand, I don't agree that the P-38, P-47, and P-51 performed the Corsair's job as well. From the results of the 1944 Joint Fighter Conference, the Corsair rated highest as a ground attack fighter and 2nd behind the P-47 in strafing. When you look at Corsair operations in the Pacific it was often flying quick turnaround close air support within 40 miles of the ground conflict from very short/unimproved airfields or carriers. Conditions where the Lightning, Mustang, and Thunderbolt wouldn't be able to operate at all.
> 
> Just my two cents.


No s/e fighter was developed from scrach as combined Air Superiority/LR Escort until the P-51H. Not even P-51B which was only modified to incorporate fuselage tanks before they became production articles for follow on P-51B/C/D/K models.

S/E Fighters designed before 1943 were all of the air superiority type - whether Interception or battlefied or tactical air cover. Offhand I can't remember a single prominant fighter with initial design actually incorprating external racks for fuel to extend range in that timeframe, but Maybe Fw 190 and F6F.

The F6F was more duarble than F4U in CAS due to the relative oil cooler placement. IIRC the US study pst VE Day showed half the losses per sortie for the CAS role.

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


----------



## buffnut453 (Jul 24, 2022)

drgondog said:


> No s/e fighter was developed from scrach as combined Air Superiority/LR Escort until the P-51H. Not even P-51B which was only modified to incorporate fuselage tanks before they became production articles for follow on P-51B/C/D/K models.
> 
> S/E Fighters designed before 1943 were all of the air superiority type - whether Interception or battlefied or tactical air cover. Offhand I can't remember a single prominant fighter with initial design actually incorprating external racks for fuel to extend range in that timeframe, but Maybe Fw 190 and F6F.
> 
> The F6F was more duarble than F4U in CAS due to the relative oil cooler placement. IIRC the US study pst VE Day showed half the losses per sortie for the CAS role.



I think the Zero comes closest to your definition. It had the external drop tank from the 65th airframe onwards. It certainly was capable of gaining air superiority at great range, as demonstrated in the Philippines in December 1941.

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


----------



## Tkdog (Jul 24, 2022)

The whole “average this pilot vs average pilot of the other plane” is also sort of bunk. The most likely to win is the one that spits the other first and is able to get into position. That is, luck is a huge factor.

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


----------



## Glider (Jul 24, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> All General Yeager would need is a baseball bat.


or a P39

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


----------



## Glider (Jul 24, 2022)

Tkdog said:


> The whole “average this pilot vs average pilot of the other plane” is also sort of bunk. The most likely to win is the one that spits the other first and is able to get into position. That is, luck is a huge factor.


In an individual combat, yes. However if in my airforce, the average pilot ability and aircraft capability is better than your average pilot and aircraft ability, I will win the war and you will lose.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 24, 2022)

Tkdog said:


> The whole “average this pilot vs average pilot of the other plane” is also sort of bunk. The most likely to win is the one that spits the other first and is able to get into position. That is, luck is a huge factor.


On the small scale you are correct. 

However when you are dealing with hundreds of encounters (not actual shoot downs) per week for a couple of months you can identify trends. 
It wasn't so much that the Spitfire shot down that many more planes than the Hurricane per 100 or 1000 missions. It was that our "average" pilot lasted a bit longer before becoming a causality. Likewise the Spitfire lasted a few more missions on average. 
Now we have three possible explanations for this. 
1. The Spitfire was smaller and harder for the Germans to see so they attacked more Hurricanes. 
2. The Hurricanes, even in a sampling of hundreds of engagements, were just unluckier than the Spitfires.
3. Something about the Spitfire (speed or climb or ????) allowed the Spitfire pilots to escape more often than Hurricane pilots in the same situations. 

There are a lot of offshoots from #3. Like the Spitfires, if they see the enemy first (in relation to the Hurricanes) need less time to get into position to attack. Less time to get into position means less time for the Germans to spot them and take evasive action. Luck or the plane is actually better at it's job? 

The data shows that the Spitfire was a more effective plane than the Hurricane in combat when you adjust for the number of planes in service or number of sorties flown.

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


----------



## buffnut453 (Jul 24, 2022)

Glider said:


> In an individual combat, yes. However if in my airforce, the average pilot ability and aircraft capability is better than your average pilot and aircraft ability, I will win the war and you will lose.



Only if your forces are relatively well matched quantitatively. If you're a tidgy-tiny air force going up against a much larger air force with comparably-performing aircraft, the likelihood is that you will lose because attrition will have a much greater impact on your force. Quantity has a quality all its own, remember.


----------



## Glider (Jul 24, 2022)

buffnut453 said:


> Only if your forces are relatively well matched quantitatively. If you're a tidgy-tiny air force going up against a much larger air force with comparably-performing aircraft, the likelihood is that you will lose because attrition will have a much greater impact on your force. Quantity has a quality all its own, remember.


You are of course correct, but the numbers can be very different, it depends on how big the difference is in the difference of the Average pilot/aircraft combination.

Two examples I think most people are aware of.
The German invasion of France and the Invasion of Russia. In the first the numbers involved were fairly equal, in the second Russia had a massive numerical advantage.

Two more recent examples
Israel against the other Arab nations
Ukraine against Russia 

In both of the above the Arab nations and Russia had a significant numerical advantage yet Israel dominated the skies and Ukraine are more than holding their own despite being outnumbered and often having inferior aircraft.

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


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 24, 2022)

Glider said:


> In both of the above the Arab nations and Russia had a significant numerical advantage yet Israel dominated the skies and Ukraine are more than holding their own despite being outnumbered and often having inferior aircraft.



"a well trained cohesive unit that developed tactics which exploited the opposition's weaknesses."

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Jul 24, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> "a well trained cohesive unit that developed tactics which exploited the opposition's weaknesses."


Exactly.


----------



## PAT303 (Jul 24, 2022)

Glider said:


> In an individual combat, yes. However if in my airforce, the average pilot ability and aircraft capability is better than your average pilot and aircraft ability, I will win the war and you will lose.


In my opinion this is where both the Spit and Hurri win, both are known for their docile handling, as Molders said and I quote '' they are childishly easy to fly, our 109's in comparison are fiendish'', the average pilot who can take off and land without worrying if he's going to crash every time will build confidence quickly and start searching and pushing the limits of his plane, the difference between the British pair and the 109 is like this, same for the Corsair V Hellcat, the Hellcat was loved by it's pilots because it was also vice free, important for a naval aircraft. The whole ace whoever shot down X amount of planes means nothing, I've never read anywhere of pilots wanting their older model aircraft when new ones are available.


----------



## buffnut453 (Jul 24, 2022)

Glider said:


> You are of course correct, but the numbers can be very different, it depends on how big the difference is in the difference of the Average pilot/aircraft combination.
> 
> Two examples I think most people are aware of.
> The German invasion of France and the Invasion of Russia. In the first the numbers involved were fairly equal, in the second Russia had a massive numerical advantage.



Yes, but in qualitative terms, Germany had a significant advantage. The primary French fighters were the MS.406 and MB.150/152 which were significantly inferior to the Me109. Yes, they had 180 H-75s and a few D.520s were starting to arrive, but overall the French fighter force was second-rate. As for bombers, the Luftwaffe again had far better equipment (IMHO). The only noteworthy French bomber was the American-built Maryland. All the rest were pretty useless. 

As for Russia, again they had numbers but not quality. The fighter force was woefully outdated and the training was questionable at best. The Stalin purges of senior military leaders had done nothing to instill confidence, or even consistency, in training and direction in the run-up to Barbarossa.

The other factor that also plays a huge part is the operational situation. In both cases, Germany was on the offensive and could pick the time and location of their attacks. Without radar, the defenders' task becomes substantially more difficult. That, in itself, becomes a force-multiplier. If the roles were reversed in 1940 and France attacked Germany, I expect the Luftwaffe would have similar problems to those experienced by the French (although, undoubtedly, the disintegration of French ground-based defences undoubtedly hindered their ability to provide adequate air defence).

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## 33k in the air (Jul 24, 2022)

PAT303 said:


> Lets put Yeager in a Hurricane and send him across the channel in 1942.



That's probably not using that particular aircraft to its strength. Tactics do matter.


----------



## 33k in the air (Jul 24, 2022)

Reluctant Poster said:


> One of those glib comments that doesn’t hold up to close scrutiny. Obviously the machine is extraordinarily important.



Yeager's point is that most of the time a superior pilot in an inferior machine will defeat an inferior pilot in a superior machine because the superior pilot will know how to wring out every last ounce of performance out of his aircraft, while the inferior pilot will likely make mistakes which negate the better performance of his aircraft.

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


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 24, 2022)

PAT303 said:


> I've never read anywhere of pilots wanting their older model aircraft when new ones are available.


Hans-Joachim Marseille did not want to convert from the -109F to the G because of engine reliability issues. The rest is history.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jul 24, 2022)

PAT303 said:


> I've never read anywhere of pilots wanting their older model aircraft when new ones are available.



USN and USMC pilots preferring F4F-3s to -4s. Four fifties vs six, but more shot-time.

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


----------



## PAT303 (Jul 24, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Hans-Joachim Marseille did not want to convert from the -109F to the G because of engine reliability issues. The rest is history.


The G wasn't a better plane than the Fiesla because it was unrelaible so my point still stands.


----------



## PAT303 (Jul 24, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> USN and USMC pilots preferring F4F-3s to -4s. Four fifties vs six, but more shot-time.


Less weight so better overall performance would be the reason here, the F3 was the better aircraft.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jul 24, 2022)

PAT303 said:


> Less weight so better overall performance would be the reason here, the F3 was the better aircraft.



Well, you'd written "'I've never read anywhere of pilots wanting their older model aircraft when new ones are available" so I thought I'd present one example you might not have heard of.

As for the weight issue, I can't be sure if the extra ammo carried earlier weighed more than the two extra guns with reduced ammo. I only know that the pilots preferred more trigger-time.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 24, 2022)

PAT303 said:


> The G wasn't a better plane than the Fiesla because it was unrelaible so my point still stands.


The G was a NEWER plane! You never said anything about "better."

Your words - 

*"I've never read anywhere of pilots wanting their older model aircraft when new ones are available."*

And saying the BF109G was better than the "F" is "very arguable" at best. Yes, early 109Gs had issues, but the BF109F was "better" than say the -109G6 or G14???


----------



## 33k in the air (Jul 24, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Well, you'd written "'I've never read anywhere of pilots wanting their older model aircraft when new ones are available" so I thought I'd present one example you might not have heard of.
> 
> As for the weight issue, I can't be sure if the extra ammo carried earlier weighed more than the two extra guns with reduced ammo. I only know that the pilots preferred more trigger-time.



According to _America's Hundred Thousand_:

F4F-3 weights: 286 lbs (4 x .50-cal MG) + 516 lbs (1,720 rounds of .50-cal ammunition) = 802 lbs
F4F-4 weights: 433 lbs (6 x .50-cal MG) + 432 lbs (1,440 rounds of .50-cal ammunition) = 865 lbs

That's 63 lbs more for the F4F-4 model.

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


----------



## PAT303 (Jul 25, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Well, you'd written "'I've never read anywhere of pilots wanting their older model aircraft when new ones are available" so I thought I'd present one example you might not have heard of.


The point I was making was latest model aircraft incorporate leasons learned in combat, developements in technology and are generally better performing than the previous model so pilots would naturally want the newest one, the six gunned Wildcat was lower performing than the four gunned model, the six guns was a British request for more firepower, in this case the newer model was not an improvement so yes the pilots would not look kindly at it.


----------



## PAT303 (Jul 25, 2022)

33k in the air said:


> According to _America's Hundred Thousand_:
> 
> F4F-3 weights: 286 lbs (4 x .50-cal MG) + 516 lbs (1,720 rounds of .50-cal ammunition) = 802 lbs
> F4F-4 weights: 433 lbs (6 x .50-cal MG) + 432 lbs (1,440 rounds of .50-cal ammunition) = 865 lbs
> ...


The folding wings added weight too, it was a slug compared to the F3.


----------



## Glider (Jul 25, 2022)

We tend to concentrate on the fighters but to a degree this also applies to the bombers. I have read that some crews preferred the B17F to the G and the RAF definitely preferred the earlier Boston III to later versions.

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


----------



## GregP (Jul 25, 2022)

PAT303 said:


> The G wasn't a better plane than the Fiesla because it was unrelaible so my point still stands.



Funny, the Bf 109G was the the most-produced version by far at 24,931. Next was the Bf 109F at 5,460.

If it was unreliable, you'd think that it would have a reputation for that. It doesn't other than very early models. Could you elaborate a bit on why you say it is unreliable?

Just curious.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Jul 25, 2022)

GregP said:


> Funny, the Bf 109G was the the most-produced version by far at 24,931. Next was the Bf 109F at 5,460.
> 
> If it was unreliable, you'd think that it would have a reputation for that. It doesn't other than very early models. Could you elaborate a bit on why you say it is unreliable?
> 
> Just curious.


Take what I said in context to the discussion, Marseille didn't like the G compared to the F because the early G models were suffering from known engine problems at the time.


----------



## EwenS (Jul 25, 2022)

Glider said:


> We tend to concentrate on the fighters but to a degree this also applies to the bombers. I have read that some crews preferred the B17F to the G and the RAF definitely preferred the earlier Boston III to later versions.


AIUI the preference by some for the F was that it was lighter and a bit more responsive on the controls (relatively speaking).

I wouldn’t say that the RAF definitely preferred the Boston III over later variants. They certainly preferred having a navigator in the nose so didn’t want the solid nosed A-20G & H which were the most produced models in 1943/44. They did take 169 of the glass nosed J & 90 K models in 1944 as the Boston IV & V. Add to that that the RAF also had the Martin Baltimore available to fill the same role in the Med and early Ventura models at Home. Aircraft like the A-20, Baltimore and Ventura were just too vulnerable to conduct low level missions in Europe. So tactics had changed to bombing from medium heights. So a heavy nose armament was a waste of time.

But by 1943 the RAF were looking for better aircraft. At home squadrons swapped Bostons and Venturas for Mosquitos and B-25 Mitchells so that by the end of 1943 only 2 squadrons (88 & 342) flew Bostons. That continued until spring 1945 when 88 disbanded and 342 switched to Mitchell.

In the Med, the SAAF squadrons that had been flying Bostons began converting to B-26 Marauders, along with some from the RAF, in early 1944. The longer range and heavier bomb load suited the missions they now had to fly across Italy & the Balkans.

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


----------



## PAT303 (Jul 25, 2022)

Lets not get carried away with what I said, a 109E pilot is not going to keep it over a 109F/G same as a MkV Spit pilot wouldn't pass on a MkIX, pilots will want the newest (hopefully) better model.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 25, 2022)

buffnut453 said:


> I think the Zero comes closest to your definition. It had the external drop tank from the 65th airframe onwards. It certainly was capable of gaining air superiority at great range, as demonstrated in the Philippines in December 1941.


Face Palm = of course you are correct, but I wonder why not airframe #1.The P-38E in November/December 1941 tested and provided pylon kits, including F4, but not a prototype, initial design feature.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jul 25, 2022)

PAT303 said:


> The point I was making was latest model aircraft incorporate leasons learned in combat, developements in technology and are generally better performing than the previous model so pilots would naturally want the newest one, the six gunned Wildcat was lower performing than the four gunned model, the six guns was a British request for more firepower, in this case the newer model was not an improvement so yes the pilots would not look kindly at it.



Right, so your gold standard isn't whether or not the plane is newer, but if the plane is better -- which makes perfect sense. The assumption built into your premise is obviously "newer = better", which we all know isn't the case, as you yourself have acknowledged twice now.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Jul 25, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Right, so your gold standard isn't whether or not the plane is newer, but if the plane is better -- which makes perfect sense. The assumption built into your premise is obviously "newer = better", which we all know isn't the case, as you yourself have acknowledged twice now.


Well you'd hope the newer models were an improvement over the older ones which was generally the case.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jul 25, 2022)

PAT303 said:


> Well you'd hope newer is better which was generally the case.



Right, but there are plenty of examples where it isn't. Probably better to just use the adjective "better" rather than "newer".


----------



## PAT303 (Jul 25, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Right, but there are plenty of examples where it isn't. Probably better to just use the adjective "better" rather than "newer".


Taking the F4F4 as an example, the folding wings made it heavier against the F3 but more of them could be stored on board because of it, so it was newer and better in that respect, unfortunately the other improvements weren't as popular.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jul 25, 2022)

drgondog said:


> Face Palm = of course you are correct, but I wonder why not airframe #1.The P-38E in November/December 1941 tested and provided pylon kits, including F4, but not a prototype, initial design feature.



I don't have any detailed references but it seems like the need for an external drop tank was included in the original requirements. Introducing it on the 65th airframe suggests it was planned from the beginning but just not implemented on the first prototypes and early production airframes. Perhaps it was a schedule-vs-risk problem, where getting the first 11 prototypes delivered was more important than completing detailed design of the drop tank installation?


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jul 25, 2022)

I do remember reading many years ago where it might have been a 354th pilot that preferred his P-51B with the Malcomb Hood to a D model. That was personal preference though, he "felt" the B was quicker and a bit more nimble, perhaps that particular B was, who knows? I would think the bubble canopy and six .50's would convince most pilots otherwise though.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Jul 25, 2022)

EwenS said:


> AIUI the preference by some for the F was that it was lighter and a bit more responsive on the controls (relatively speaking).
> 
> I wouldn’t say that the RAF definitely preferred the Boston III over later variants. They certainly preferred having a navigator in the nose so didn’t want the solid nosed A-20G & H which were the most produced models in 1943/44. They did take 169 of the glass nosed J & 90 K models in 1944 as the Boston IV & V. Add to that that the RAF also had the Martin Baltimore available to fill the same role in the Med and early Ventura models at Home. Aircraft like the A-20, Baltimore and Ventura were just too vulnerable to conduct low level missions in Europe. So tactics had changed to bombing from medium heights. So a heavy nose armament was a waste of time.
> 
> ...


I read that the earlier versions were used for as long as possible as the much heavier later versions were a lot heavier on the controls which was important, whilst the addition of the turret with 2 0.50 mgs didn't add much to the defence in the real world


----------



## PAT303 (Jul 25, 2022)

Peter Gunn said:


> I do remember reading many years ago where it might have been a 354th pilot that preferred his P-51B with the Malcomb Hood to a D model. That was personal preference though, he "felt" the B was quicker and a bit more nimble, perhaps that particular B was, who knows? I would think the bubble canopy and six .50's would convince most pilots otherwise though.


The B series were the quickest with the streamlined hood but visibility was regarded as poor compared to the Malcomb/bubble type.


----------



## Macandy (Jul 26, 2022)

EwenS said:


> AIUI the preference by some for the F was that it was lighter and a bit more responsive on the controls (relatively speaking).
> 
> I wouldn’t say that the RAF definitely preferred the Boston III over later variants. They certainly preferred having a navigator in the nose so didn’t want the solid nosed A-20G & H which were the most produced models in 1943/44. They did take 169 of the glass nosed J & 90 K models in 1944 as the Boston IV & V. Add to that that the RAF also had the Martin Baltimore available to fill the same role in the Med and early Ventura models at Home. Aircraft like the A-20, Baltimore and Ventura were just too vulnerable to conduct low level missions in Europe. So tactics had changed to bombing from medium heights. So a heavy nose armament was a waste of time.
> 
> ...



The main reason the RAF moved away from the Boston by 1944 was there was simply less need for a fast intruder bomber to go looking for trouble..
It was always a very popular bomber with its crews, fast, tough and comfortable.

One of the RAF Bostons last hurrahs was as smokescreen layers on the morning of D Day, first planes over the beaches - unfortunately - the only planes over the beaches! so everyone spent the morning banging away at them as they flew up and down in straight lines. They had expected to suffer very heavy losses - much to the crews surprise, they all made it home for a cooked breakfast.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Macandy (Jul 26, 2022)

Peter Gunn said:


> I think it's totally valid to compare the Corsair to the Spitfire, considering that they both served side by side (along with the F6F) in the same theater against the same foe for some time:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Whats with this fixation of high altitude escorts of bombers, it was last years model for piston engined fighters once the jets turned up.
By late 45, it wasn't going to be P-51's and and P-47's escorting bomber raids.
95% of the time, fighters fought under 20,000 ft or were on the deck ground pounding.

The war ended - everything went out of production bar the Corsair, with the last ones rolling off the lines in 1953. These supposedly 'better' fighters couldn't adapt and evolve, and all went to the boneyards.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 26, 2022)

Peter Gunn said:


> I do remember reading many years ago where it might have been a 354th pilot that preferred his P-51B with the Malcomb Hood to a D model. That was personal preference though, he "felt" the B was quicker and a bit more nimble, perhaps that particular B was, who knows? I would think the bubble canopy and six .50's would convince most pilots otherwise though.


Dad had similar feelings about the differences in 'feel' but preferredthe D to fight with. When the Reverse Rudder Boost tab was installed the advantage in feel was reduced, particularly at high speed.


PAT303 said:


> The B series were the quickest with the streamlined hood but visibility was regarded as poor compared to the Malcomb/bubble type.


Actually the B framed canopy was not the lowest drag or the 'quickest' for same takeoff GW and with/without racks - the D was, with the greater slope windshield to eliminate the stagnation point at the cowl/windshield interface and a cleaner wing rack. Lednicer proved that with his CFD models pointing out the issue with both the Spit IX and the P-51B for windshield/canopy pressure distribtions.

A couple of points of B vs D flight tests that are available on Mike Williams' spitfireperformance site.

First, the condition of the tested Mustang is crucial for comparisons. Second, the testing available were performed and recorded based on the airspeed indicator, The P-51B compared to D airspeed indicator, was more accurate at lower speeds from 300mp through landing speed, but the D was more accurate at airspeeds >300mph. The external rack on the P-51B was improved on the D model by reducing drag about 50%. At 430mph the drag difference of the B rack was about 12mph compared to 'no rack', The D difference was about 6mph. 

Then you have the big wildcard - namely which engine? the 1650-3 with FTH near 29K or the 1650-7 with FTH near 26K (Ram air for both). AFAIK there are no available flight test results for the 1650-3 installed on the P-51D/D-1 and the early P-51D-5. For comparable Drag comprisons based on available flight tests on Mike's site, use the April 1944 tests with 44-1 fuel on P-51B-5 and -15 to look at top speeds at FTH with and without racks for 67"MP- approx 12mph between 426 (racks) and 438 (no racks) at* 67" with 1650-7 and 9600 # at takeoff*. The Rack on airspeed at 67" has to be picked from the Test report charts.

Look at June 1945 P-51D-15 tests for performance as well as for different external loads. For the 1650-7 at FTH 26000,* 67" MP, WITH racks - the top speed is 442mph with 9600 # takeoff weights*... approx 16mph difference favoring the D for the same GW at takeoff to eliminate induced Drag delta in the comparisons. Fully loaded P-51D with max inernal fuel, oil, guns and ammo is 10,200 pounds so Induced drag will reduce top speed approx 3 mph

Summary - the P-51D was a.) Cleaner, b.) Faster with and without racks, - at same MP/RPM at comparable altitudes - by about 12-16mph when tested with 1650-7 vs 1650-7 in the different airframes.

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


----------



## Geoffrey Sinclair (Jul 26, 2022)

Macandy said:


> The main reason the RAF moved away from the Boston by 1944 was there was simply less need for a fast intruder bomber to go looking for trouble..


The RAF used its Bostons for standard level bombing with fighter escort, the intruders were the Mosquitoes.


Macandy said:


> One of the RAF Bostons last hurrahs was as smokescreen layers on the morning of D Day, first planes over the beaches - unfortunately - the only planes over the beaches! so everyone spent the morning banging away at them as they flew up and down in straight lines. They had expected to suffer very heavy losses - much to the crews surprise, they all made it home for a cooked breakfast.


Number 2 Group RAF ended 1943 with 3 Boston squadrons, 88, 107 and 342. 88 Continued with Bostons until disbandment on 6 April 1945. 107 squadron moved to Mosquito VI February/March 1944. 342 squadron moved to the Mitchell in March/April 1945.

By British clocks (double summer time) D-Day sunrise was at 5.45, the full moon set at 05.53.

There were plenty of allied aircraft over the beaches, the smoke laying started at 05.00 hours, the brief was first light, aircraft operating in pairs 10 minutes between runs. 1 Boston downed by German flak, 1 shot at by allied ships, one aborted after hitting the water, one crashed for unknown reasons.

9th Air Force bombers began take offs at 03.43 so they could attack targets at first light. Similar for the 8th.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Macandy (Jul 26, 2022)

Geoffrey Sinclair said:


> The RAF used its Bostons for standard level bombing with fighter escort, the intruders were the Mosquitoes.
> 
> Number 2 Group RAF ended 1943 with 3 Boston squadrons, 88, 107 and 342. 88 Continued with Bostons until disbandment on 6 April 1945. 107 squadron moved to Mosquito VI February/March 1944. 342 squadron moved to the Mitchell in March/April 1945.
> 
> ...




I'm going by my contemporaneous interview notes.


----------



## PAT303 (Jul 26, 2022)

drgondog said:


> A couple of points of B vs D flight tests that are available on Mike Williams' spitfireperformance site.


I just looked at some charts to compare speeds, 441 for the B, 437 for the D, but like you've posted so much development was happening it's hard to compare like for like. It's also interesting that you mention the windscreen, I have the same test results on drag and the Spit windscreen is a big drag area, people seem fixated on the radiators but the windscreen is a big issue.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 27, 2022)

PAT303 said:


> I just looked at some charts to compare speeds, 441 for the B, 437 for the D, but like you've posted so much development was happening it's hard to compare like for like. It's also interesting that you mention the windscreen, I have the same test results on drag and the Spit windscreen is a big drag area, people seem fixated on the radiators but the windscreen is a big issue.


'Like' to'like' has to strip variables. In the case of B vs D, that means same engine, same MP/RPM, same GW, same exteranal drag items.

Lednicer was first (for me) to produce sophisticated CFD models to accurate scale representations - and the graphic pressure distributions at cruise were enlightening - ditto for FW 190.


----------



## PAT303 (Jul 27, 2022)

drgondog said:


> 'Like' to'like' has to strip variables. In the case of B vs D, that means same engine, same MP/RPM, same GW, same exteranal drag items.
> 
> Lednicer was first (for me) to produce sophisticated CFD models to accurate scale representations - and the graphic pressure distributions at cruise were enlightening - ditto for FW 190.


I'd like one for the 109, it's windscreen is horrible, probably the worst of the lot.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Jul 28, 2022)

The Bf 109 K-4 is supposed to have been able to hit 440 mph @ 24,600 feet and 1,850 PS (1,825 hp) @ 1.8 ata (52.1 in Hg) boost, so it really couldn't be all that bad. drag-wise. 

They didn't fix the stick mechanical advantage issue, so it wasn't exactly easy the throw around, and didn't have rudder trim, either. If it was actually going 440 mph, it was running to or from a fight; it wasn't fighting. But, it was within a hair of being as fast as a P-51D (at least for a short time) no matter how you cut if, using slightly more HP.


----------



## PAT303 (Jul 28, 2022)

Lets be honest it's not streamlined at all.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 28, 2022)

GregP said:


> The Bf 109 K-4 is supposed to have been able to hit 440 mph @ 24,600 feet and 1,850 PS (1,825 hp) @ 1.8 ata (52.1 in Hg) boost, so it really couldn't be all that bad. drag-wise.
> 
> They didn't fix the stick mechanical advantage issue, so it wasn't exactly easy the throw around, and didn't have rudder trim, either. If it was actually going 440 mph, it was running to or from a fight; it wasn't fighting. But, it was within a hair of being as fast as a P-51D (at least for a short time) no matter how you cut if, using slightly more HP.


Greg, note the early P-51B-1 flight tests clean as the K-4 would have been tested. 441 at 29K at *1270 Hp* 61"MP and 422 @23K at 1275 Hp @61" for relative drag to Hp comparisons.. The P-51D-15 flight tests with 1650-7 With Racks was 438mh at 61" MP and 1288 Hp at (Military Power) at 28K.

According to Hoerner, the CD for Bf 109 clean (no racks) was ~ 0.036 vs production P-51B-5 @NACA of 0.0208. Don't know which model Bf 109 Hoerner was referring to but think 109E in full scale wind tunnel.. The CDwet for 109 is shown as 0.0095, for P-51 = 0.0040 - Table A, chapter 14.9. 'Fluid Dynamic Drag".

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Jul 28, 2022)

PAT303 said:


> Lets be honest it's not streamlined at all.
> View attachment 679325


also notable is that All windshields on production fighters were 'inclined flat plates' - with varying degree slope from cowl. 

Imagination says 'ugly around the edges' but not a Lot worse than Spit IX with armored windshield?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mike Williams (Jul 28, 2022)

drgondog said:


> According to Hoerner, the CD for Bf 109 clean (no racks) was ~ 0.036 vs production P-51B-5 @NACA of 0.0208. Don't know which model Bf 109 Hoerner was referring to but think 109E in full scale wind tunnel.. The CDwet for 109 is shown as 0.0095, for P-51 = 0.0040 - Table A, chapter 14.9. 'Fluid Dynamic Drag".



Me-109 series "G" produced in 1944: Dr.-Ing S. F. Hoerner, Fluid Dynamic Drag

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


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jul 28, 2022)

Macandy said:


> Whats with this fixation of high altitude escorts of bombers, it was last years model for piston engined fighters once the jets turned up.
> By late 45, it wasn't going to be P-51's and and P-47's escorting bomber raids.
> 95% of the time, fighters fought under 20,000 ft or were on the deck ground pounding.
> 
> The war ended - everything went out of production bar the Corsair, with the last ones rolling off the lines in 1953. These supposedly 'better' fighters couldn't adapt and evolve, and all went to the boneyards.


Fixation? Gee, I don't know, perhaps dominating the air war in the ETO? Not to mention helping win said conflict. _Point is_, it illustrates that Mustangs and Thunderbolts were capable of that, F4U not so much.

Actually, Mustangs would (and were) still be escorting B-29's by late '45, they just weren't needed as B-29 ops switched to night bombing as a rule and Japanese daylight interceptors were next to nonexistent by August '45..

And why do you suppose the Corsair remained in production? It certainly wasn't as a first line fighter, as you state, jets were taking that role over. And while we're on it, I'd say the Skyraider has it all over the Corsair for CAS. One might posit that the Navy kept buying Corsairs as their CAS options were limited? I don't see where the F4U "adapted and evolved" while other went to the boneyard, and you can't seriously argue the F4U was a front line fighter anytime after 1946, it was basically a bomb truck by then. Perhaps you might look at the Korean conflict and relative missions and loss rates vis a vis Mustang and Corsair.

*EDIT* This is not to say I dislike the F4U or think it was a bad airplane, quite the contrary, I think it was an excellent low to medium fighter bomber that could hold it's own with anything piston driven within it's performance envelope. I've seen too many people over the years trumpeting how it was the greatest of all time and that simply is not the case. So my "Fixation" with long range escort is to illustrate that while the Mustang (and the Thunderbolt) could do the Corsair's job (low to medium altitude fighter and CAS), the F4U was NOT capable of doing the Mustang (or the P-47's) job i.e. long range high altitude escort.

Cheers

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 28, 2022)

Peter Gunn said:


> And why do you suppose the Corsair remained in production? It certainly wasn't as a first line fighter, as you state, jets were taking that role over...................... I don't see where the F4U "adapted and evolved" while other went to the boneyard, and you can't seriously argue the F4U was a front line fighter anytime after 1946.



Actually they built over 550 F4U-5s between 1946 and 1950. The initial contracts were specifically because the jets weren't quite ready yet. 
The F4U-5 had the "sidewinder" engine and was rated to have service ceiling of 45,000ft. Top speed was 469 mph at 26,800 feet but that may be without racks? 
The F4U-5 was also the first version with all metal wings which reduced drag. Many of them got radar in a wing pod and they operated as night fighters several years before the jet powered night fighters showed up. 
So yes, they were front line fighters after 1946, well after 1946.
By 1950 it may have been a different story.

By 1952/53 the F4U-6/7 the production of the Corsairs were for ground attack or for the French. 
The F4U-5s shared the end of US Navy Piston development with the F8F-2 Bearcats. 

The F4U-6/7 were somewhat retro grade. Good ground attack but no longer fighters.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 28, 2022)

Mike Williams said:


> Me-109 series "G" produced in 1944: Dr.-Ing S. F. Hoerner, Fluid Dynamic Drag


Hi Mike- his detail drag analysis was for Bf 109G. Drag data, however, for the full scale 1939 test at Chalais-Moudon wind tunnel in 1939. Reference 14.6 (e) Results of Me 109 Analysis at Re=4x10^6. The comparable NACA full scale test of P-51B-1 (langley) was at Re=6.19x10^6. Unknown conitions save that the Me 109 was tested with covers over intakes s P-51B as full production configuration - and no Meredith Effect.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jul 28, 2022)

Shortround6 said:


> Actually they built over 550 F4U-5s between 1946 and 1950. The initial contracts were specifically because the jets weren't quite ready yet.
> The F4U-5 had the "sidewinder" engine and was rated to have service ceiling of 45,000ft. Top speed was 469 mph at 26,800 feet but that may be without racks?
> The F4U-5 was also the first version with all metal wings which reduced drag. Many of them got radar in a wing pod and they operated as night fighters several years before the jet powered night fighters showed up.
> So yes, they were front line fighters after 1946, well after 1946.
> ...


All true, I'm well aware of Corsair development and again, I'm not saying it wasn't a fine aircraft, it was. The H model Mustang and the P/F-82 were in production postwar as well, and one could make a case that the F-82 was better and more versatile than the F4U. But really by 1947-48, would you prefer an F4U as a fighter or a F-80? Or even for CAS? That Naval jet development was lagging behind the USAF can be used for a case to continue piston fighter development/deployment I'll give you that.

But how many F4U-5's were available for long range high altitude escort during WWII?


----------



## drgondog (Jul 28, 2022)

Peter Gunn said:


> All true, I'm well aware of Corsair development and again, I'm not saying it wasn't a fine aircraft, it was. The H model Mustang and the P/F-82 were in production postwar as well, and one could make a case that the F-82 was better and more versatile than the F4U. But really by 1947-48, would you prefer an F4U as a fighter or a F-80? Or even for CAS? That Naval jet development was lagging behind the USAF can be used for a case to continue piston fighter development/deployment I'll give you that.
> 
> But how many F4U-5's were available for long range high altitude escort during WWII?


The first F4U-5 flew in 1946. 

The only 'front line' attribute of F4U-5 and P/F-51H and F7F and P/F-82 were much more range and payload than the FJ, the F80/84/86 of the late 40s. In low threat environments they were superior in payload and target accuracy due to lower speed - but not CAS survivabiity or air to air combat


----------



## GregP (Jul 28, 2022)

drgondog said:


> also notable is that All windshields on production fighters were 'inclined flat plates' - with varying degree slope from cowl.
> 
> Imagination says 'ugly around the edges' but not a Lot worse than Spit IX with armored windshield?



Hi Bill!

I was just looking at top speed. The Bf 109K-4 was neck-in-neck, top speed-wise, with the P-51D, CD0 notwithstanding. I have no illusion that the rank and file Bf 109 was nearly as clean as a clean P-51D, but the top speed suggests it wasn't far off the mark. I have never seen an aerodynamic study of the K-4, so I don't know what CD0 was.

No other point.

The Bf 1009K-4 still needed:
1) Better mechanical advantage on elevators and ailerons. Re-do the control system or move the fulcrum.
2) Rudder trim. Should not have been too difficult. Even some very basic airplanes have rudder trim.
3) More fuel. Could have increased the size of the main fuel bladder under the seat easily.
4) A better windscreen / canopy. They did this on some experimental models, but it never made production.

All easy fixes that somehow never made it to the field.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 28, 2022)

GregP said:


> Hi Bill!
> 
> I was just looking at top speed. The Bf 109K-4 was neck-in-neck, top speed-wise, with the P-51D, CD0 notwithstanding. I have no illusion that the rank and file Bf 109 was nearly as clean as a clean P-51D, but the top speed suggests it wasn't far off the mark. I have never seen an aerodynamic study of the K-4, so I don't know what CD0 was.
> 
> ...


Hi Greg - cited the numbers in the other thread to illustrate the F-4 mantra - you can drive a brick fast with enough Hp. In the case above I showed MP (not Combat) 61"MP at 28K 439mph (with racks) vs 442 (clean) for K-4 w/1825Hp - 30% less HP (1288hp) for P-51D-15. This not entirely fair to K-4 at its FTH as air slightly more dense at 26K.

At 67" WEP the P-51D WITH racks = 442mph (1410 Hp) or 23% less HP at 26K than K-4 - apprx same density altitude.as your K-4 top speed altitude.

I don't know what the CD numbers for 109K-4 are, but they are at least 40% higher than P-51D.

More factors to consider. Respective CL for both the 109 and 51D increase with altitude and start to contribute to increased pressure drag as AoA incleases to maintain level flight, as well as compressible flow (CDm) becomes a factor - more for K-4 than P-51D due to wing

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Jul 28, 2022)

drgondog said:


> also notable is that All windshields on production fighters were 'inclined flat plates' - with varying degree slope from cowl.
> 
> Imagination says 'ugly around the edges' but not a Lot worse than Spit IX with armored windshield?


From the MkV all Spits had internal armoured windscreens, the 109, Spit and P51B all had high drag screens.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jul 28, 2022)

PAT303 said:


> From the MkV all Spits had internal armoured windscreens, the 109, Spit and P51B all had high drag screens.


The Brits had some excellent glass manufacturing. The Malcolm Hood impresses.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jul 28, 2022)

Peter Gunn said:


> But really by 1947-48, would you prefer an F4U as a fighter or a F-80? Or even for CAS?



In 1948, for CAS, I'm definitely going with the F4U. As a fighter, of course it was being surpassed at that time, but for putting ordnance on target, it had already had a lot of practice.


----------



## GregP (Jul 28, 2022)

Mike Williams said:


> Me-109 series "G" produced in 1944: Dr.-Ing S. F. Hoerner, Fluid Dynamic Drag



Hi Bill and Mike,

This link to Hoerner shows an "Me 109" with a DB 601A engine with 1200 hp. The only variant with a DB 601A engine was an early Bf 109E. Surely cannot be a Bf 109K-4.

And the Bf 109K-4 had about 1,150 hp at 24,750 feet at 440 mph. The engine made some 1,800 hp for takeoff at sea level and 1.8 ata. Source for the hp is: Messerschmitt Bf 109K, but you can find it elsewhere, too. Might or might not be correct, but I doubt the full 1,800 or 1,850 hp at 24,750 feet in any case. The DB was a good engine, but it wasn't magic. The supercharger was single-stage and had a variable-speed hydraulic coupling.

I am not arguing drag; I am citing top speed. The Bf 109K-4 certainly had the top speed to be VERY competitive since it was faster than the P-51D by a very small amount ... a few mph, which in the real world means "about equal in top speed."


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jul 29, 2022)

PAT303 said:


> Lets be honest it's not streamlined at all.
> View attachment 679325


Better than a Skua’s.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Jul 29, 2022)

GregP said:


> Hi Bill and Mike,
> 
> This link to Hoerner shows an "Me 109" with a DB 601A engine with 1200 hp. The only variant with a DB 601A engine was an early Bf 109E. Surely cannot be a Bf 109K-4.


Agreed, but he used the G for drag build up in Chapter 14 - and 1200HP as the basis from which to illustrate exhaust gas thrust (way too simplistic, I might add).



GregP said:


> And the Bf 109K-4 had about 1,150 hp at 24,750 feet at 440 mph. The engine made some 1,800 hp for takeoff at sea level and 1.8 ata. Source for the hp is: Messerschmitt Bf 109K, but you can find it elsewhere, too. Might or might not be correct, but I doubt the full 1,800 or 1,850 hp at 24,750 feet in any case. The DB was a good engine, but it wasn't magic. The supercharger was single-stage and had a variable-speed hydraulic coupling.
> 
> I am not arguing drag; I am citing top speed. The Bf 109K-4 certainly had the top speed to be VERY competitive since it was faster than the P-51D by a very small amount ... a few mph, which in the real world means "about equal in top speed."


Not disagreeing - just pointing out that FTH and external stores and basc drag need apple to apple comparisons to be meaningful.As an aside I saw a FB video today in which Jack Roush made the comment that the "P-51B was 15kts faster than the D" and I was astounded that he didn't qualify conditions or basis of comparison.


----------



## PAT303 (Jul 29, 2022)

Admiral Beez said:


> Better than a Skua’s.
> 
> View attachment 679512


Yeah the Skua is the winner in the most horrible angle windscreen competition.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 29, 2022)

PAT303 said:


> Yeah the Skua is the winner in the most horrible angle windscreen competition.


The angle is pretty bad but at least the frame doesn't look like apprentice blacksmiths hammered it out in-between making raw horse shoes. 
Letting the people responsible for the 109 wind shied frame actually shoe the horses is animal abuse.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## yulzari (Jul 29, 2022)

Admiral Beez said:


> Better than a Skua’s.
> 
> View attachment 679512


You would be grateful for that cockpit view landing at night in bad weather.


----------



## buffnut453 (Jul 29, 2022)

Actually, I'm not so sure the Skua's windscreen is really that bad. I think, in part, it's an optical illusion because the rear frame slopes forward to the top of the frame. We're so accustomed to those rear frames being vertical, that the forward slope makes the whole windscreen appear to be leaning forward when, in reality, it's not. Now...the Skua windscreen is certainly more steeply angled than most others but it still is far from vertical.

This pic shows what I'm blathering on about. Note how the forward edge of the sliding portion of the pilot's canopy slopes forward. The actual windscreen does slope back slightly. Plus it's relatively small compared to many contemporaneous windscreens.


----------



## GregP (Jul 29, 2022)

drgondog said:


> Agreed, but he used the G for drag build up in Chapter 14 - and 1200HP as the basis from which to illustrate exhaust gas thrust (way too simplistic, I might add).
> 
> 
> Not disagreeing - just pointing out that FTH and external stores and basc drag need apple to apple comparisons to be meaningful.As an aside I saw a FB video today in which Jack Roush made the comment that the "P-51B was 15kts faster than the D" and I was astounded that he didn't qualify conditions or basis of comparison.



Yeah, but Jack Rousch had problems safely landing a bizzjet on a LONG runway. Not too sure his analysis is anything but having flown one of each, and who is to say what condition the two airframes were in? 

Lack of information is, as you pointed out, a factor to make you scratch your head.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jul 29, 2022)

buffnut453 said:


> Actually, I'm not so sure the Skua's windscreen is really that bad. I think, in part, it's an optical illusion because the rear frame slopes forward to the top of the frame. We're so accustomed to those rear frames being vertical, that the forward slope makes the whole windscreen appear to be leaning forward when, in reality, it's not. Now...the Skua windscreen is certainly more steeply angled than most others but it still is far from vertical.
> 
> This pic shows what I'm blathering on about. Note how the forward edge of the sliding portion of the pilot's canopy slopes forward. The actual windscreen does slope back slightly. Plus it's relatively small compared to many contemporaneous windscreens.
> 
> ...


There's a lot I like about the Skua. It's the RN's first all metal, folding wing, monoplane, retractable undercarriage aircraft. Those are good specs in 1938. Now, if only that list had been given to a single seat fighter instead, along with a requirement for speed and RoC competitive with the land based fighters of 1938. Had cancer not already claimed Reginald Mitchell he might have taken this design brief and made something amazing for the FAA to replace the Fulmar when/before the Seafire/Martlet/Firefly did.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jul 29, 2022)

buffnut453 said:


> Actually, I'm not so sure the Skua's windscreen is really that bad. I think, in part, it's an optical illusion because the rear frame slopes forward to the top of the frame. We're so accustomed to those rear frames being vertical, that the forward slope makes the whole windscreen appear to be leaning forward when, in reality, it's not. Now...the Skua windscreen is certainly more steeply angled than most others but it still is far from vertical.
> 
> This pic shows what I'm blathering on about. Note how the forward edge of the sliding portion of the pilot's canopy slopes forward. The actual windscreen does slope back slightly. Plus it's relatively small compared to many contemporaneous windscreens.
> 
> ...



It's vertical enough to draw a yellow card even in 1938. Not the real reason the aircraft got outdated so quickly, but it does speak to the designers not paying attention to detail, don't you think?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Jul 29, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> It's vertical enough to draw a yellow card even in 1938. Not the real reason the aircraft got outdated so quickly, but it does speak to the designers not paying attention to detail, don't you think?



Depends what details you're paying attention to.

It looks pretty good with regard to:

overall view over the nose
- taxiing / take-off / landing
- sighting for forward armament and dive-bombing
wet / rainy weather visibility
image distortion and light reflections at night
When you're dealing with a mere 225-230 mph aircraft I could easily see the above advantages beating out a very marginal gain from a lower, sleeker cockpit.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 29, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> It's vertical enough to draw a yellow card even in 1938. Not the real reason the aircraft got outdated so quickly, but it does speak to the designers not paying attention to detail, don't you think?


Depends on which designers.






At least the Skua used a fully enclosed canopy/windscreen. 

Getting an optically flat panel in 1937-38 may not have been that easy. 

Also remember that the Skua production contract was placed in July 1935. About 1 1/2 years before the prototype even flew. It was only about 6-7 months after the contract for the Spitfire prototype. 
Spitfire prototype seems to have used a single piece of curved Plexiglas (?) for the windscreen.

Production Spitfires seems to have used a variety of windscreens, in no particular order. 
2 piece with flat pane and curved sides.
3 piece with flat panel and flat sides.
4 piece with flat panel and flat sides and a small top. 

Some of these can be seen with both exterior BP glass and interior BP glass. 

Since some MK Vs were rebuilt MK Is and IIs the canopy variations are all over the place.

Curved panels often gave poor vision in the early years.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Geoffrey Sinclair (Jul 30, 2022)

Shortround6 said:


> Actually they built over 550 F4U-5s between 1946 and 1950. The F4U-5 was also the first version with all metal wings which reduced drag. Many of them got radar in a wing pod and they operated as night fighters several years before the jet powered night fighters showed up. By 1952/53 the F4U-6/7 the production of the Corsairs were for ground attack or for the French.


The 3 XF4U-5 were accepted December 1945, March and July 1946, production of the day fighter version began in November 1947, production of the night fighter version in March 1948, there were also 30 reconnaissance versions May 1948 to November 1948. Production of the day fighter version stopped in September 1948, apart from 1 in October. Production of the night fighter version continued, with some gaps, until the third quarter of 1951. 223 day and 315 night fighters.

AU-1 production Q1 and 2/1953 then again in Q1/1953, total 111, F4U-7 production Q1 to Q3/1953, total 94.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Jul 30, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> It's vertical enough to draw a yellow card even in 1938. Not the real reason the aircraft got outdated so quickly, but it does speak to the designers not paying attention to detail, don't you think?



I think they WERE paying attention to detail, at least to dive-bombing detail. The very vertical windscreen surely shows the pilot a good view of his target when he is in a near-vertical dive. Where the designer fell a bit short was not thinking about top speed and maybe cruise speed. In the task of dive bombing, the Skua is just fine, but it needs local air superiority or fighter escorts to do it.

We know the Dauntless was a pretty decent makeshift fighter after the bombs were dropped, but I have never heard tales of the Skua successfully mixing it up with fighters. Perhaps it wasn't as hopeless as I have assumed. But, if true, it seems like we SHOULD have heard of some actual events to support the contention.

The thing is, they SBD was about 30 mph faster than a Skua, but they cruised virtually at the same speed (185 - 187 mph). The armament difference was .303 versus .50 MG. I have no real idea of the comparative maneuverability or robustness between them, but the Skua doesn't look fragile in the least, and it SEEMS like they should have been able to take similar damage. Sort of perplexing that we hear great things about the SBD and not much about the Skua. The wing area was close and the Dauntless was about 1,000 lbs heavier at gross, so the Skua SHOULD have been very close to being as maneuverable as the SBD. The SBD DID have 310 more horsepower from the engine (at sea level, anyway) and perhaps that is the difference. I wouldn't necessarily conclude that, but it seems like a decent power delta in favor of the SBD.

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


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jul 30, 2022)

Good points, 

 GregP
. I suspect we hear more about the Dauntless due to it being such a success in the dive-bomber role that many authors can't resist the temptation to tack on, "_and_ it could be a CAP stand-in in an emergency" or similar verbiage.

It's odd that the Skua doesn't get credit for being the first airplane to sink a ship heavier than a destroyer in combat. That was a notable achievement at any time, but more especially in 1940, I'd think.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Jul 30, 2022)

Perhaps you are correct and the British press just never embraced the Skua's exploits like the U.S. press embraced the SBD.

I kind of like the Skua but, then again, maybe I just like pug-nose airplanes since I like the Zero and Bearcat, too.

It's in the eye of the beholder, I suppose.

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


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jul 30, 2022)

GregP said:


> Perhaps you are correct and the British press just never embraced the Skua's exploits like the U.S. press embraced the SBD.
> 
> I kind of like the Skua but, then again, maybe I just like pug-nose airplanes since I like the Zero and Bearcat, too.
> 
> It's in the eye of the beholder, I suppose.



Oh, there's no accounting for taste, fo sho.

I suspect the Skua, as an early-war airplane, got mighty overshadowed by the Spit in the UK press.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Jul 30, 2022)

Likely as not you are correct.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MikeMeech (Jul 30, 2022)

GregP said:


> Perhaps you are correct and the British press just never embraced the Skua's exploits like the U.S. press embraced the SBD.
> 
> I kind of like the Skua but, then again, maybe I just like pug-nose airplanes since I like the Zero and Bearcat, too.
> 
> It's in the eye of the beholder, I suppose.


Hi
Skuas of Nos. 800 and 803 Sqns. dived bombed and sank the German cruiser 'Konigsberg' in Bergen Fjord on the 10th April, 1940. That month the first production SBD-1 was completed, it did not fly until 1st May and was not delivered to the USN until 6th September, 1940. When comparing types it should be remembered how much later than the Skua that the SBD entered service. The SBD was not a better aircraft than the Skua in April 1940 by the time the former saw action the Skua was long gone operationally (February 1941).

Mike

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


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 31, 2022)

There were only about 140 combat Skuas. The last 50 off the production line were completed as target tugs, some of the earlier ones were converted.

For the number of planes actually engaged in combat the Skua did very well. It did what had been asked of it, dealing with snoopers/recon planes and with low altitude bombers out of reach of land based fighters in much of the Norwegian campaign. 

SBDs had two major advantages. 
1. It had a two speed supercharger giving more power down low and a bit extra power higher up. Which is where the speed "advantage" shows up. 
SBD-3 could do a smidge over 200knts at 16,000ft, engine was rated at 800hp at 15,000ft in high gear. 
In lower blower the SBD-3 could do about 243mph at 5000ft but speed dropped as it climbed until it could engage high blower. Speed was down to 235mph at 9600ft. 

The max speed of the Skua was at 6500ft with it's moderately supercharged engine. 

2. The Skua had a two pitch prop. The SBD had a constant speed prop. 

I am not saying the Skua would have been better than the SBD but things were not equal. 

I would also note that some sources say the SBD's .50 cal guns had 360 rounds (180rpg). 
A Skua carried 2400 rounds (600rpg) so the Skua could engage more often before needed to re-arm.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 31, 2022)

GregP said:


> The wing area was close and the Dauntless was about *1,000 lbs heavier at gross*, so the Skua SHOULD have been very close to being as maneuverable as the SBD. The SBD DID have *310 more horsepower* from the engine (at sea level, anyway) and perhaps that is the difference.



That certainly depends on which version/s of the SBD you are comparing and when.

The SBD-1, 2, 3 and 4 only had 1000hp for take-off so they only had about 170hp more horsepower. They were also only supposed to use 2300rpm (about 950hp) in flight as opposed to the 2350rpm limit for take-off. The engines in the Early SBDs were never given a "military rating" or at least not the early (pre Pearl Harbor) days. 

The engine is Skua had 830hp for take-off and 905hp at 6500. 

It took until the SBD-5 to get the 1200hp engine.


Gross weights are all over the place. The 1942 manual for the SBD-3 lists all kinds of gross weight as apparently the early SBD's didn't come with armor or self sealing fuel tanks but they could be added later (or taken out?) 

An SBD-3 in combat condition (protection) and a 500lb bomb and 140US gal of fuel grossed 8786lb
An SBD-3 in combat condition (protection) in scout configuration (no bomb) and 150US gal of fuel grossed 8259lb.
The armor and self sealing tanks went almost 700lbs 

At some point the gross weight of the SBD-3 was allowed to go up to 10,400lbs. but this was at some point in 1942 between publication of the manual and Aug 1942.


----------



## GregP (Jul 31, 2022)

MikeMeech said:


> Hi
> Skuas of Nos. 800 and 803 Sqns. dived bombed and sank the German cruiser 'Konigsberg' in Bergen Fjord on the 10th April, 1940. That month the first production SBD-1 was completed, it did not fly until 1st May and was not delivered to the USN until 6th September, 1940. When comparing types it should be remembered how much later than the Skua that the SBD entered service. The SBD was not a better aircraft than the Skua in April 1940 by the time the former saw action the Skua was long gone operationally (February 1941).
> 
> Mike



The Skua first flew in Feb 37 and was introduced in Nov 38. The SBD first flew in May 40 and was introduced in 1940.

So the SBD is perhaps 1 1/2 years newer as far as introduction goes, but its worth remembering that the U.S.A. was NOT especially ramping up for WWII.

Northrop began the design in 1935 and transferred the project to Douglas in 1937.

Blackburn started on the Skua in Apr 35 , did not transfer the design to another firm, and the UK was preparing for war WAY before the U.S.A. was.

I'd call the Skua and the SBD contemporaries with the SBD simply having a longer gestation period but, hey, that's just me. They were both Naval dive bombers, but the Skua carried one 500-pound bomb while the SBD carried up to 2,250-pounds of bombs and they both cruisd at about the same speed. The SBD had about 5,000 feet on the Skua for service ceiling, but that's likely due to the SBD's extra 350 hp or so mostly. Often, the SBD flew with one 500 pound bomb, so they were flying comparable missions a lot of the time at about the same speed and altitude.

Just rambling, so I'll stop. Cheers.


----------



## Geoffrey Sinclair (Jul 31, 2022)

USN Performance charts,

SBD-1 as of 30 November 1942, maximum weight 9,780 pounds with 180 gallons of fuel and a 1,600 pound bomb. Fuel tankage 180 gallons protected or 210 not protected, oil 11.7 protected / 13 unprotected gallons. Empty weight 5,903 pounds. 1,000 HP for take off. First production June 1940.

SBD-2 as of 30 November 1942, maximum weight 10,360 pounds with 205 gallons of fuel and a 1,600 pound bomb. Fuel tankage 260 gallons protected or 310 not protected, oil 16.5/19.5 gallons. Empty weight 6,293 pounds. 1,000 HP for take off. First production November 1940.

SBD-3,4 as of 6 August 1942, maximum weight 10,400 pounds with 249 gallons of fuel and a 1,000 pound bomb, or with 158 gallons of fuel and a 1,600 pound bomb. Fuel tankage 260 gallons protected or 310 not protected, oil 16.5/19.5 gallons. Empty weight 6,345 pounds. 1,000 HP for take off. SBD-3 first production March 1941, SBD-4 October 1942.

SBD-5 as of 1 June 1944, maximum weight 10,701 pounds with 370 gallons of fuel and a 500 pound bomb. Fuel tankage 254 gallons protected, oil 16 gallons protected. Empty weight 6,533 pounds. 1,200 HP for take off. First production February 1943.

SBD-6 as of 1 October 1945, maximum weight 11,779 pounds with 284 gallons of fuel and a 1,000 pound bomb and 8 5 inch rockets. Fuel tankage 284 gallons protected, oil 16 gallons protected. Empty weight 6,554 pounds. 1,200 HP for take off. First production February 1944.

SBD-3,4 other configurations, Scout 9,407 pounds 260 gallons of fuel, Bomber 9,969 pounds, 260 gallons of fuel and a 500 pound bomb, Ferry, 8,574 pounds, (5,745 pounds empty), 310 gallons of fuel. All combat SBD-3,4 carrying 2x0.50 inch, 360 rounds, 2x0.30 inch, 2,000 rounds.

There are the predecessors, the Northrop BT from 1938, the 1939 Douglas 8A-3 for the Netherlands and Peru and the 15 8A-4 April to June 1940 for Iraq and the 36 8A-5/A-33 for Norway October 1940 to February 1941


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 31, 2022)

GregP said:


> but the Skua carried one 500-pound bomb while the SBD carried up to 2,250-pounds of bombs and they both cruisd at about the same speed. The SBD had about 5,000 feet on the Skua for service ceiling, but that's likely due to the SBD's extra 350 hp or so mostly.



Again, the SBD had a two speed supercharger and it had a better propeller.

the 2250lb bomb load is fiction, plan and simple.

they rated it at 2250lbs but there is no evidence what so ever that it ever flew with 1600lb from a carrier and aside from trials, probably never flew with one from a land base either. 
To get to the 2250lb bomb limit they used 325lb depth charges, which do not combine well with 1600AP bombs for aiming or common drop point. 

If carrying a 2250lb bomb load the fuel load would be under 100 gallons. 
depending on which SBD the fuel load was could be as low as under 50 gallons to meet the max gross weight. 
the under depth charges are worth over 100 gallons of fuel. 


and once again, the the SBDs with over 170hp difference (let alone 350hp) don't show up until well after (several years) the Skua was taken out of front line service.


----------



## yulzari (Aug 1, 2022)

For it’s core role one needs to compare it with peers such as the Val, early Stuka etc. in which comparison it stands out quite well. However, once the Fulmar turns up, it is no longer needed for the ancillary purpose and is speedily replaced by the Albacore for the (excuse the pun) core role which brings more range, a torpedo and far more bombs and is just as good a dive bomber. 

So, on second thoughts, a more informative comparison is Skua v Albacore.

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


----------



## GregP (Aug 1, 2022)

Hi Shortround 6.

You are correct as usual. I was jotting down the specified load, not the usual load.

A B-17 could theoretically carry a 10,000-pound bomb load but, to do so, it didn't have a lot of fuel and some bombs had to be hung externally. While they likely did that in development testing, if only to establish the rating, I'd be VERY surprised if they ever did so in actual use. Most B-17 missions were longer than a hundred miles or so.

What I was really saying is the SBD could haul a considerably heavier bomb load than a Skua. Again, it's likely down to the powerplant and maybe the airscrew. They DID fly similar missions a lot of the time, I'd think.


----------



## Spindash64 (Aug 5, 2022)

I'm just saying, not many dive bombers out there can boast an air to air W/L ratio of greater than 1:1. The SBD, meanwhile, could

Also, yes I'm aware that doesn't mean much in regards to actual effectiveness as a Dive Bomber, AND that those numbers are somewhat inflated by the USN desperately using them to fill in with killing Japanese torpedo bombers and dive bombers due to a lack of Wildcats, but that still speaks volumes about survivability.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 5, 2022)

Spindash64 said:


> I'm just saying, not many dive bombers out there can boast an air to air W/L ratio of greater than 1:1. The SBD, meanwhile, could
> 
> Also, yes I'm aware that doesn't mean much in regards to actual effectiveness as a Dive Bomber, AND that those numbers are somewhat inflated by the USN desperately using them to fill in with killing Japanese torpedo bombers and dive bombers due to a lack of Wildcats, but that still speaks volumes about survivability.


only if you believe the old claims and not the research of the Japanese records that showed a significant different number of actual losses.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Aug 5, 2022)

Spindash64 said:


> I'm just saying, not many dive bombers out there can boast an air to air W/L ratio of greater than 1:1. The SBD, meanwhile, could



I suspect that this is apocryphal, based on pilot claims rather than enemy loss-sheets. I could well be wrong and accept well-founded correction. Not to say it wasn't one hell of an aircraft.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Aug 5, 2022)

GregP said:


> The Bf 109 K-4 is supposed to have been able to hit 440 mph @ 24,600 feet and 1,850 PS (1,825 hp) @ 1.8 ata (52.1 in Hg) boost, so it really couldn't be all that bad. drag-wise.
> 
> They didn't fix the stick mechanical advantage issue, so it wasn't exactly easy the throw around, and didn't have rudder trim, either. If it was actually going 440 mph, it was running to or from a fight; it wasn't fighting. But, it was within a hair of being as fast as a P-51D (at least for a short time) no matter how you cut if, using slightly more HP.


According to one article actual flight test data does not exist for the Bf 109K. What we see quoted these days are mere calculations produced by Messerschmitt's Project Bureau at Oberammergau:






Spitfire Mk XIV versus Me 109 G/K


Spitfire Mk XIV versus Me 109 G/K performance comparison, wartime flight trials and data analysis.



www.spitfireperformance.com





The article goes on to say that by January 1945 the chief engineer of the Luftwaffe was not happy with manufacturing quality, stating that the 109 airframe was "extraordinarily bad and performance outrageously low". Daimler-Benz noted that there was no point in continually increasing engine power when the airframes were getting worse due to sloppy manufacturing They even went so far as to admit that any performance comparison between the 109 and the Mustang was "devastating".

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## NevadaK (Aug 10, 2022)

Seems like a good place to share this:

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Aug 10, 2022)

Mike Williams said:


> Me-109 series "G" produced in 1944: Dr.-Ing S. F. Hoerner, Fluid Dynamic Drag


Mike, Hoerner missed the memo. Bf 109G-1 thru G-6 operational 1942, although G-6 appearing in numbers at end of 1942/early 1943.Look to e.) Results of Me 109 Analysis for more discussion of Wind Tunnel values of 1941 for what I recall, was a Bf 109E.

What Hoerner said was "Bf 109G was most produced in 1944". True


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Aug 10, 2022)

GregP said:


> I think they WERE paying attention to detail, at least to dive-bombing detail. The very vertical windscreen surely shows the pilot a good view of his target when he is in a near-vertical dive. Where the designer fell a bit short was not thinking about top speed and maybe cruise speed. In the task of dive bombing, the Skua is just fine, but it needs local air superiority or fighter escorts to do it.
> 
> We know the Dauntless was a pretty decent makeshift fighter after the bombs were dropped, but I have never heard tales of the Skua successfully mixing it up with fighters. Perhaps it wasn't as hopeless as I have assumed. But, if true, it seems like we SHOULD have heard of some actual events to support the contention.
> 
> The thing is, they SBD was about 30 mph faster than a Skua, but they cruised virtually at the same speed (185 - 187 mph). The armament difference was .303 versus .50 MG. I have no real idea of the comparative maneuverability or robustness between them, but the Skua doesn't look fragile in the least, and it SEEMS like they should have been able to take similar damage. Sort of perplexing that we hear great things about the SBD and not much about the Skua. The wing area was close and the Dauntless was about 1,000 lbs heavier at gross, so the Skua SHOULD have been very close to being as maneuverable as the SBD. The SBD DID have 310 more horsepower from the engine (at sea level, anyway) and perhaps that is the difference. I wouldn't necessarily conclude that, but it seems like a decent power delta in favor of the SBD.



30 mph speed is nothing to sneeze at, the SBD also had about 30% more range, which is extremely important for carrier strike aircraft. SBD could also carry a larger (1,000 lb) bomb and / or more bombs. I also don't think the Skua had real self sealing fuel tanks and I'm not sure how much armor.

To me the Skua is just one of those many aircraft from the 30's which just got hit hard with the ugly stick mid-transition between biplanes and monoplanes. How the Spitfire and 109 emerged so beautiful from that era I can only guess (especially the Spitfire).

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## 33k in the air (Aug 10, 2022)

According to the Airplane Characteristics and Performance document for the SBD-5 the combat radius was:

240 nautical miles with 1 x 1,000-lb bomb
260 nautical miles with 1 x 500-lb bomb
420 nautical miles with 1 x 500-lb bomb and 2 x 58-gallon drop tanks
215 nautical miles with 1 x 500-lb bomb and 8 x 5-inch rockets

The scout radius:

305 nautical miles (no bomb carried)
400 nautical miles with 2 x 58-gallon drop tanks (no bomb carried)

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Aug 11, 2022)

33k in the air said:


> 215 nautical miles with 1 x 500-lb bomb and 8 x 5-inch rockets



See, I'm liking this. That's pretty badass.


----------



## yulzari (Aug 11, 2022)

33k in the air said:


> According to the Airplane Characteristics and Performance document for the SBD-5 the combat radius was:
> 
> 240 nautical miles with 1 x 1,000-lb bomb
> 260 nautical miles with 1 x 500-lb bomb
> ...


I observe that the document reminds us of the critical issue of airspeed over the deck with consequences for ambient wind, carrier speed and carrier risk and delay of turning out of the fleet defences to find an adequate headwind.It reminds us that the load depends upon this airspeed and the length of the deck as well as the engine/airframe. So, on one day a squadron can operate with a maximum load and/or range but, from another carrier on another day, the same squadron and aeroplanes can barely get off the deck with a reduced fuel load and lighter bomb load. Top Trumps it is not. A carrier due for boiler clean or refit and hull fouled may not be able to deploy the same strike power as it could when new, clean and fresh from trials.

I was amused to note that the ferry cruising speed of the SBD-5 is about the same as a Fairey Albacore.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## EwenS (Aug 11, 2022)

yulzari said:


> I observe that the document reminds us of the critical issue of airspeed over the deck with consequences for ambient wind, carrier speed and carrier risk and delay of turning out of the fleet defences to find an adequate headwind.It reminds us that the load depends upon this airspeed and the length of the deck as well as the engine/airframe. So, on one day a squadron can operate with a maximum load and/or range but, from another carrier on another day, the same squadron and aeroplanes can barely get off the deck with a reduced fuel load and lighter bomb load. Top Trumps it is not. A carrier due for boiler clean or refit and hull fouled may not be able to deploy the same strike power as it could when new, clean and fresh from trials.
> 
> I was amused to note that the ferry cruising speed of the SBD-5 is about the same as a Fairey Albacore.


By late 1943, when the USN began operating multi carrier task groups, a system of procedures had been worked out and laid out in fleet instructions.

So Carrier groups generally operated at speeds in the 15-25 knot region. There was a series of ship formations set out to cover various eventualities. These generally placed the carriers at the centre of the task group with concentric rings of escorting Battleships, cruisers and destroyers around them. The diameter of the task group varied depending on whether the risk was submarines or aircraft. 

Carriers did not “turn out of the fleet defences to find an adequate headwind”. The instructions provided for either:-

1. The whole task group changing direction and/or speed, as for example where the carriers might be launching the favoured the deck load strike which would take some time; OR
2. Where a single carrier of the group had to operate outwith the normal strike sequence, it would position itself as far down wind as possible, while remaining within the outer ring of escorts. It would then run into wind for the shortest time possible at whatever speed it required, launch/land on its aircraft before returning to its designated position at the centre of the group. At no time would it leave that outer ring of escorts. More often used for landing the regular CAP and ASP rotations or emergency recoveries where only a handful of aircraft on a single carrier in the group were involved.

Which option was chosen was determined by the task group commander taking account of all the circumstances of the time.

But yes, the rest of your comments are entirely correct. Until late in the war catapults were rarely used on the fleet carriers. By 1945 with increasing aircraft weights, the first few aircraft of what today would be termed a “strike package” would be catapulted with the rest having free take offs. But by then the SBD was gone from the carrier decks.

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


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Aug 13, 2022)

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> 30 mph speed is nothing to sneeze at, the SBD also had about 30% more range, which is extremely important for carrier strike aircraft. SBD could also carry a larger (1,000 lb) bomb and / or more bombs. I also don't think the Skua had real self sealing fuel tanks and I'm not sure how much armor.
> 
> To me the Skua is just one of those many aircraft from the 30's which just got hit hard with the ugly stick mid-transition between biplanes and monoplanes. How the Spitfire and 109 emerged so beautiful from that era I can only guess (especially the Spitfire).


The statement that the Skua didn't have self sealing tanks whereas the SBD did is not true. The early production SBDs did not have seal sealing tanks The SBD-3 was the first model to include them (and additional armor) The SBD-3 was issued to the fleet on March 18, 1941 while the Skua flew its last operational mission on April 5, 1941 i.e. 19 days later.
During the time the Skua was in frontline service very few American aircraft had self sealing tanks. To criticize the Skua for this deficiency is clearly unfair.
The US only adopted self sealing tanks after observing the British experience in the first year or so of the war, The Skua obviously didn't have that advantage.
As to the range advantage the SBD -1 and 2 weren't particularly long ranged. 
When comparing British to American aircraft (usually unfavorably for the British) it is important to understand the chronology. This brings up the question of why the Skua is being compared to the SBD in the first place. Their careers had very little overlap. The true contemporaries of the Skua as a dive bomber were the Vought SB2U and the Curtiss SBC. When the Skua was sinking the Konigsburg on April 10, 1940 those aircraft were the front line dive bombers of the USN 
When the Skua scored its first aerial victory on September 26, 1939, the USN was largely a biplane navy. In fact all its fighters were Grumman F3Fs. Again, the Skua wasn't totally outclassed, in fact it was more heavily armed than Grumman or its Japanese competitor the Mitsubishi AM5.
The late 30's was a time of extraordinarily rapid change in aircraft design. In particular, naval aircraft of that era had very short shelf lives. The Skua accomplished quite a lot in its short career, more than most of its contemporaries.

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


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Aug 13, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> I suspect that this is apocryphal, based on pilot claims rather than enemy loss-sheets. I could well be wrong and accept well-founded correction. Not to say it wasn't one hell of an aircraft.


See my previous posts on claims vs actual losses for Coral Sea, Santa Cruz and Eastern Solmons

Based on Lundstrom out of 31 claims made by SBDs only 6 were actual kills. Thats over claiming by a factor of more than 5. I am confident that an analysis of the data for the other battles of 1942 would show significant over claiming as well.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Aug 13, 2022)

Reluctant Poster said:


> See my previous posts on claims vs actual losses for Coral Sea, Santa Cruz and Eastern Solmons
> 
> Based on Lundstrom out of 31 claims made by SBDs only 6 were actual kills. Thats over claiming by a factor of more than 5. I am confident that an analysis of the data for the other battles of 1942 would show significant over claiming as well.



I really need to get a couple of Lundstrom's books. Thanks for the reminder.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 13, 2022)

At some point the SBD-3 was up-graded from 9031lbs gross to 10400lbs gross. 

Somewhere in there they added about 690lbs worth of protection for the fuel tanks and the oil tanks and armor for the crew. 

The 9031lb weight is for a plane with a 1000lb bomb and 100 US gallons of fuel in a manual dated 1942 _with protection. _

The 10400lb weight is from performance Data sheet dated 8-6-1942. 

This is were a large part of the difference between the Skua and the SBD comes from. I don't know what was involved in raising the Gross weight of the SBD-3, the engine stayed the same. I don't know if anything in the wing was changed or heavier duty tires or anything else. 

I do know that the manual calls for a take-off distance of 853 at 9031lbs with the 1000lb bomb and the 100 US gallons of fuel while the Performance Data sheet calls for 1250ft for take-off at 10400lbs, both zero wind. 

The SBD-3 without protection and with a 500lb bomb and 140 Us gallons of fuel could take off in under 700ft. 

An SBD at the later full load (10400lbs) needed 580ft to take-off with a 25kt head wind. 


As has been said by others, please compare planes at similar points in time. 

The SBD-1/2 didn't have protection as built, had a single .30 cal gun out the back and one .50 cal and one 30 cal out the front. The two .50s didn't show up until the SBD-3.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Aug 13, 2022)

Reluctant Poster said:


> The statement that the Skua didn't have self sealing tanks whereas the SBD did is not true.



Ok lets talk about this part for a minute. I admit, I'm not an expert on the Skua. However, I read this on the internets:






Blackburn Skua description







dingeraviation.net





"_The Skua had a major disadvantage in that it been designed without any armour protection for the crew or self-sealing fuel tanks to cope with bullet and shrapnel holes. An armoured windscreen and some armour plate behind the pilot was provided for combat squadrons in late 1940, but the poor TAG in the rear seat had no such protection and faced being roasted alive by the blow-torch flames of a burning fuel tank blown back by the airflow. It is reported that before each combat mission the TAG had to sign for a small bag which contained corks of various sizes with which he was expected to plug any bullet holes in the fuel tank! ³"_

The author of that page gives his source as:

³ An account of the "bag of corks" is found in Chapter 1 of Stuart E. Sowards book about R.E. Bartlett "One Mans War". ISBN 0-9697229-3-1, Published by Neptune in Canada.

So that sounds like marginal armor and no self sealing fuel tanks. Now if this is wrong, I'd be glad to learn so. Do you have another source which contradicts this?



Reluctant Poster said:


> The early production SBDs did not have seal sealing tanks The SBD-3 was the first model to include them (and additional armor)



Right, but the 57 SBD-1 which were made, so far as I know, never went into combat. The 87 SBD-2 I'm not sure about, some may have been used as Recon birds.

But the other 99.7% of the production run which were completed during the war did all have self sealing fuel tanks* and *armor.



Reluctant Poster said:


> The SBD-3 was issued to the fleet on March 18, 1941 while the Skua flew its last operational mission on April 5, 1941 i.e. 19 days later.
> During the time the Skua was in frontline service very few American aircraft had self sealing tanks. To criticize the Skua for this deficiency is clearly unfair.


First, I did not initiate this comparison, I just commented on it. I'm very glad for the Royal Navy that the Skua was rapidly phased out, it's too bad they didn't have much to replace it with until they got Avengers.

Second, can we please stop pretending that every single criticism of any Fleet Air Arm or RAF aircraft is 1) an attack on the British way of life, 2) a comparison between the entire wartime experience of the Americans with that of the British? I'm just discussing the comparison of two Naval aircraft aircraft used in the same war, which was already underway when I chimed in. The Skua wasn't that good. The SBD was, by contrast, pretty good.

Thank God Skua crews did not have to tangle with A6Ms



Reluctant Poster said:


> The US only adopted self sealing tanks after observing the British experience in the first year or so of the war, The Skua obviously didn't have that advantage.
> As to the range advantage the SBD -1 and 2 weren't particularly long ranged.
> When comparing British to American aircraft (usually unfavorably for the British) it is important to understand the chronology. This brings up the question of why the Skua is being compared to the SBD in the first place. Their careers had very little overlap. The true contemporaries of the Skua as a dive bomber were the Vought SB2U and the Curtiss SBC. When the Skua was sinking the Konigsburg on April 10, 1940 those aircraft were the front line dive bombers of the USN


Well... maybe? The US was fielding a bunch of other aircraft which compared very favorably for the most part to their British equivalents, but the Navy didn't get their gear in order until right before the war started for the Americans. Luckily for them, they were ready by then.

The British got into war much earlier but were also aware of that fact earlier. The procurement / design problems suffered by the FAA cannot simply be attributed to starting the war earlier. The Chinese started the war two years before the British did, but that doesn't say much about their aircraft industry or lack thereof.


Reluctant Poster said:


> When the Skua scored its first aerial victory on September 26, 1939, the USN was largely a biplane navy. In fact all its fighters were Grumman F3Fs. Again, the Skua wasn't totally outclassed, in fact it was more heavily armed than Grumman or its Japanese competitor the Mitsubishi AM5.
> The late 30's was a time of extraordinarily rapid change in aircraft design. In particular, naval aircraft of that era had very short shelf lives. The Skua accomplished quite a lot in its short career, more than most of its contemporaries.


I think the F3F could handle a Skua. An A5M would eat it alive.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Aug 13, 2022)

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> Ok lets talk about this part for a minute. I admit, I'm not an expert on the Skua. However, I read this on the internets:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You're missing the point. Name the aircraft that had self-sealing tanks when the Skua was in service. They are not common. Or name any American naval aircraft that had armor when the Skua served. The 99.7% of SBD that had self-sealing tanks were made after the Skua left service.
The Vindicators and Devastators at Midway didn't have self-sealing tanks and that was over a year after the Skua left service. Early production F4Fs didn't have self-sealing tanks.

In fact you are comparing the entie wartime experience of the US with early war expience of the British.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 13, 2022)

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> I think the F3F could handle a Skua. An A5M would eat it alive.


Who is flying and what's the tactical situation?!? Case in point;







*Air Warfare: an International Encyclopedia: A-L*
edited by Walter J. Boyne, Michael Fopp

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Aug 14, 2022)

You will never see me defending the Devastator or the Vindicator. But I was chiming in on a discussion of the Skua vs. the SBD which was already ongoing. Pointing out that the Skua was a terrible aircraft by comparison to the SBD, in contrary to what some were claiming, may be low hanging fruit, but it apparently needed to be pointed out. 

By the time the Skua was retired, most front line combat aircraft flying on both sides in the Battle of Britain had already been fitted with some armor and some kind of self sealing fuel tanks. So the necessity of doing this had been recognized and implemented with other aircraft. Nor were the British the only people to realize that these were needed. The French also had several aircraft with these protective features flying and fighting during the Battle of France - the D.520 fighter, Br 693 fast bomber and Potez 63.11 had armor and self sealing tanks. Many Soviet aircraft, like the later variants of the I-16 fighter and Su-2 bomber were already being fitted with armor before the Battle of Britain even started, based on combat experience in the Spanish Civil War and in Manchuria. The LaGG-3 and Yak 1 fighters and the Il-2 and Pe 2 bombers (all introduced in 1941) all had at least some armor, which was later enhanced.

Armor and self sealing fuel tanks were not necessary for training flights in the US in 1940, but the Americans were already starting to fit armor, bullet proof glass and self sealing tanks to aircraft being sent to France and Britain before the Skua was retired. Once the war started, most of the USN and USAAF combat aircraft had both fairly heavy armor and self sealing tanks, (considerably better protection in fact than the aluminum "armor" on the fuselage fuel tank of a Hurricane or Spitfire at the time). Important export aircraft such as the Tomahawk IIB, in action with the RAF in 1941, had both armor and self sealing tanks.

Most Skua units were equipped with the Fairy Fulmar when the Skua was retired. According to "armouredcarriers.com", the Fulmar had at least one armored and self sealing fuel tank between the two crew positions, and the pilot had a bullet proof glass windscreen, but no armor behind his seat, and the navigator also had no armor of any kind. If that is correct, I would call that inadequate for a combat aircraft at that time. Did the Fairey Swordfish have armor or self sealing tanks? I was unable to find any reference to it. Same for the Fairey Albacore.

I would say that luckily for the servicemen of the FAA, the Skua was quickly retired, and though the Fulmar, Swordfish and Albacore soldiered on, they were soon augmented by more capable aircraft such as Martlets and Avengers which were better equipped for positive outcomes during encounters with enemy aircraft.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Aug 14, 2022)

yulzari said:


> I observe that the document reminds us of the critical issue of airspeed over the deck with consequences for ambient wind, carrier speed and carrier risk and delay of turning out of the fleet defences to find an adequate headwind.It reminds us that the load depends upon this airspeed and the length of the deck as well as the engine/airframe. So, on one day a squadron can operate with a maximum load and/or range but, from another carrier on another day, the same squadron and aeroplanes can barely get off the deck with a reduced fuel load and lighter bomb load. Top Trumps it is not. A carrier due for boiler clean or refit and hull fouled may not be able to deploy the same strike power as it could when new, clean and fresh from trials.
> 
> I was amused to note that the ferry cruising speed of the SBD-5 is about the same as a Fairey Albacore.



With regard to ferry speed, almost all radial aircraft cruise at WAY lower airspeeds than maximum. Inline aircraft, on the other hand tend to cruise at a significantly higher percent of top speed. If usually has to do with specific fuel consumption. The big radials CAN cruise fast, but they eat up a lot of fuel doing it. Inlines, however, tend to have lower drag and cruise faster by virtue to having better SFC numbers versus % power produced at cruise.

Naturally, there are exceptions to the generalization above. The P-40 cruised best at about 170 mph.

An F8F-2 could make 455 mph at critical altitude. It cruised at about 185 mph TAS.
A P-51D could make 437 mph at critical altitude and could cruise at 280 - 300 mph TAS.

When you push the throttle, the F8F outperforms the P51D in almost every category except range. But you want to be near the fuel if you have to use a lot of performance ... say ... within 250 miles or less. 

The P-51D, on the other hand, is perfectly happy fighting 500 miles away from home at 350 mph and won't have any trouble flying home if undamaged after the combat.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ThomasP (Aug 14, 2022)

Swordfish was built without SSFT or armour. Fitting armour protection for the pilot and consolidating the fuel load into a single SSFT was considered, but not proceeded with due to a combination of factors.

Skua was built without SSFT or armour. Some surviving airframes had armour fitted to protect the pilot from the rear.

Albacore was built with pilot rear armour and SSFT from the start.

Fulmar from the start was built with an 'armoured' SSFT that acted as pilot protection from the rear, with bullet-resistant glass windscreen. At some point, armour plate on the upper firewall at the front of the cockpit was added. Some Fulmar were later fitted with pilot rear head armour.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## EwenS (Aug 14, 2022)

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> You will never see me defending the Devastator or the Vindicator. But I was chiming in on a discussion of the Skua vs. the SBD which was already ongoing. Pointing out that the Skua was a terrible aircraft by comparison to the SBD, in contrary to what some were claiming, may be low hanging fruit, but it apparently needed to be pointed out.
> 
> By the time the Skua was retired, most front line combat aircraft flying on both sides in the Battle of Britain had already been fitted with some armor and some kind of self sealing fuel tanks. So the necessity of doing this had been recognized and implemented with other aircraft. Nor were the British the only people to realize that these were needed. The French also had several aircraft with these protective features flying and fighting during the Battle of France - the D.520 fighter, Br 693 fast bomber and Potez 63.11 had armor and self sealing tanks. Many Soviet aircraft, like the later variants of the I-16 fighter and Su-2 bomber were already being fitted with armor before the Battle of Britain even started, based on combat experience in the Spanish Civil War and in Manchuria. The LaGG-3 and Yak 1 fighters and the Il-2 and Pe 2 bombers (all introduced in 1941) all had at least some armor, which was later enhanced.
> 
> ...


There seems to be a loss of perspective in this debate about the Skua and its operational use and the actual numbers involved.

Although only 190 were built, there were only ever 4 front line squadrons equipped with them and only 3 of those took them into combat.

800 - Oct 1938-Apr 1941. Spent most of its life on Ark Royal until 24/3/41 and then returned to the U.K. in April on Furious to re-equip with Fulmars.

801 - Mar-May 1939 with a couple of days at sea on Courageous in April before becoming a deck landing training squadron and renumbered as 769 on 24 May 1939, when the FAA reverted to RN control, then operating a variety of types.

801 reformed and used Skuas Jan 1940 - May 1941. Spent most of its time to Dec 1940 on Furious, then shore based except for a detachment left on Furious until early Feb 1941 while she ferried Hurricanes from Britain to Takoradi in West Africa. And they did virtually no flying. Became 800 X Flight on Fulmars in May 1941. 801 next reformed in Aug 1941 on Sea Hurricanes.

803 - Dec 1938 - Oct 1940 spent most of its time on Ark Royal with a few days on Glorious in April 1940. Converted to Fulmars and went to Formidable.

806 - Feb-Jun 1940. Only used Skuas from formation and while working up on Illustrious. All were replaced by Fulmars before she sailed to join the Med Fleet. This was the first squadron to receive the Fulmar.

In Sept 1939, Ark Royal’s air group had 18 (9 each for 800 & 803 squadrons). 801 began in Jan 1940 with 6 increasing to 12 in June. And by the beginning of 1941 there was only 800 squadron on Ark Royal using them operationally, alongside 808 with Fulmars. 800 was replaced by 807 with Fulmars in April.

So at its peak there were maybe 30 airframes on the front line!

While Martlets began to arrive in late 1940 (from French orders) it was early 1942 before they became available in quantity to equip front line squadrons. And the Avenger only joined the FAA from Jan 1943.

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


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 14, 2022)

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> Pointing out that the Skua was a terrible aircraft by comparison to the SBD, in contrary to what some were claiming, may be low hanging fruit, but it apparently needed to be pointed out.


What needs to be pointed out is that there were only 190 Skuas built. the last 50 were delivered as target tugs starting in Aug of 1939. 

The Last Skua 
dive bomber/ fighters were delivered on July 31st 1939. 

This was the "SBD" in service in 1939.







The FIRST SBD-1s were delivered in the summer of 1940. 

Apparently that needs to be pointed out.

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


----------



## MikeMeech (Aug 14, 2022)

Shortround6 said:


> What needs to be pointed out is that there were only 190 Skuas built. the last 50 were delivered as target tugs starting in Aug of 1939.
> 
> The Last Skua
> dive bomber/ fighters were delivered on July 31st 1939.
> ...


Hi
Already has been #493, for what it is worth. Of course without self-sealing fuel tanks or armour plate.


MikeMeech said:


> Hi
> Skuas of Nos. 800 and 803 Sqns. dived bombed and sank the German cruiser 'Konigsberg' in Bergen Fjord on the 10th April, 1940. That month the first production SBD-1 was completed, it did not fly until 1st May and was not delivered to the USN until 6th September, 1940. When comparing types it should be remembered how much later than the Skua that the SBD entered service. The SBD was not a better aircraft than the Skua in April 1940 by the time the former saw action the Skua was long gone operationally (February 1941).
> 
> Mike


Mike


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 14, 2022)

MikeMeech said:


> Hi
> Already has been #493, for what it is worth. Of course without self-sealing fuel tanks or armour plate.
> 
> Mike


 We are also comparing Skua end dates with SBD start dates.

Skua production delivery started in Sept 1938 although slowly. So we are comparing two planes that entered production almost 1 3/4 years apart.


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Aug 14, 2022)

I think this is a rather slippery oversimplification going on here. 






This aircraft (the A-17, made by Northrop, the same firm which produced the BT-1 you posted an image of) was already in production in the US from *1936* and had been deployed to the military by *1938*. The US military chose to focus on multi-engine bombers so these were put on the back-burner, but these aircraft were directly related to the SBD, and I think already compared well to a Skua even that far back.

This was the version of the BT which was in production when the Skua was arriving on Carriers in 1939 - the BT-2 (bottom part of this image). The BT-2 had the larger engine as you can see and lacked the goofy looking fared undercarriage, these having been replaced with fully retractable wheels (like in the A-17 / A-33)






The SBD -1 (from the BT-2, below) went into service with the USMC in 1940, and with the Navy in early 1941. This is already a much better aircraft than the Skua, even before it got self sealing fuel tanks. The considerably upgraded SBD-3 was already in production by the time the SBD-1 was reaching units in early 1941.

The US did not rush the combat equipment into production at that point because, unlike the British, they were not already in war. But the SBD-3, based on the original mid 1930s designs of the BT-1 and A-17, proved to be a war-winner, very capable of sinking ships and fairly good at surviving attack by enemy fighters (especially when flown by highly trained USN pilots). Which is why they built 5,900 of them instead of 190.

Had the Skua been a more worthy design, I think it too would have been further developed. The Fulmar which replaced it was an adequate recon plane but wasn't a good fighter and certainly not a dive bomber. The RN / FAA adapted their obsolete Swordfish biplane to the needs of WW2 admirably, and certainly dealt a crippling blow with it to the Italian Navy at Taranto, but they could have used a functional modern strike aircraft for their Navy. They ultimately relied on the Avenger for this role as neither the Swordfish, the Albacore, nor their late arriving replacement the wonderfully named but technically challenged Fairey Barracuda proved capable in the strike role. I think the Firefly was the first adequate FAA carrier based strike aircraft. 

Though the Corsair was arguably better.

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


----------



## SaparotRob (Aug 14, 2022)

The SBD definitely looked better than the Skua. Especially the windscreen.


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Aug 14, 2022)

I fully concede that the SBD was better than the Skua in part _because_ it was a more complete design finished a bit later. The Skua, like the Swordfish and I'd say the Fulmar too, was rushed into action before it was ready, but this is the nature of war.

However, based on the A-17 design of 1936-38, had there been any real urgency, I believe they could have gotten something much more like the SBD into production earlier, the critical element being the availability of the more powerful R-1820 engine, with the possible other option being the R-1830.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 14, 2022)

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> I fully concede that the SBD was better than the Skua in part _because_ it was a more complete design finished a bit later. The Skua, like the Swordfish and I'd say the Fulmar too, was rushed into action before it was ready, but this is the nature of war.


Production of the Skua as a dive bomber was stopped before the start of the war in Poland. There was no development during the war. It may have been rushed in the build up to war but Only the target tugs were being built when the war started. 

The British changed their minds about dive bombing before the war started. Somebody/s thought that fleet defense could have done better with Blackburn Rocs.

The Skua never got a 1939-40 engine so we don't know what improvements could have been made. Because Blackburn was tooling up to make the Botha the Roc was farmed out to Boulton Paul for actual production which delayed things there. 

But putting the Skua back into production seems a non starter given the actual situation. 
Keeping the tooling at Blackburn, killing of the Roc and the Botha might have lead to a more combat capable FAA in 1940-41.

The whole A-17 to SBD linage is a little bogus. 
Like the people that claim the Fulmar was developed from the Fairey battle. 

The A-17 used a wing that was about 60 sq ft bigger and had about 6ft more wing span. The A-17 was also about 3/4 of ton lighter than a SBD. 

A lot of times planes from the same design teams look similar and use some the same features.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## yulzari (Aug 15, 2022)

Shortround6 said:


> Production of the Skua as a dive bomber was stopped before the start of the war in Poland. There was no development during the war. It may have been rushed in the build up to war but Only the target tugs were being built when the war started.
> 
> The British changed their minds about dive bombing before the war started. Somebody/s thought that fleet defense could have done better with Blackburn Rocs.
> 
> ...


I agree, although one can argue that the Fairey Fulmar was developed from the Light Bomber that was itself based upon the Battle. The Skua got the best available engine at the time it was designed. It had to be British and @900bhp was all that was coming out of a factory at that moment. The Pegasus itself was no more powerful at that time so the Perseus was as good as it got.

As I said on the Better Skua thread, the improved Skua was the Fulmar. If you wanted to dive bomb then strap four times the bomb load onto an Albacore and cruise to the target at much the same speed. As to what sort of bombs, well that is another thread.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## EwenS (Aug 15, 2022)

I keep reading the stories that the last 50 Skuas (or 70 per one source) were delivered as target tugs. Reading through the individual aircraft histories that does not appear to be true.(See Sturtivant "Fleet Air Arm Aircraft 1939 to 1945").

Most were going to an MU and then to 759 squadron, the Fleet Fighter School, initially. L3055 the second to last produced was with Ark Royal 800 squadron in May 1940 when lost. L3046 was on Ark in April 1940. Same with L3007 from July1940, the first of the last 50. L3009, L3010, L3011, L3015, L3020, L3028, L3033, amongst others all served with the 4 front line Skua squadrons in 1940/41.

Does anyone have a copy of Matthew Willis's "Blackburn Skua and Roc" to hand? The answer is probably in there.
Amazon product

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Aug 15, 2022)

EwenS said:


> I keep reading the stories that the last 50 Skuas (or 70 per one source) were delivered as target tugs. Reading through the individual aircraft histories that does not appear to be true.(See Sturtivant "Fleet Air Arm Aircraft 1939 to 1945").
> 
> Most were going to an MU and then to 759 squadron, the Fleet Fighter School, initially. L3055 the second to last produced was with Ark Royal 800 squadron in May 1940 when lost. L3046 was on Ark in April 1940. Same with L3007 from July1940, the first of the last 50. L3009, L3010, L3011, L3015, L3020, L3028, L3033, amongst others all served with the 4 front line Skua squadrons in 1940/41.
> 
> ...



Skuas were being used for target towing by early 1940.
DH Clarke had a column in Royal Airforce Flying Review called "What Were They Like to Fly" in which he wrote stories about the myriad of aircraft types he flew. In his article "Ghost Fighters Over Dunkirk" he recounts his story of flying his Skua towing flares over Dunkirk to hopefully illuminate any German ships trying to interfere with the evacuation.









He wrote another article on flying the Skua which I will look for. Incidentally the Skua was one of his 6 favorite aircraft to fly (Gauntlet, Fury (biplane), Harvard, Macchi C 200, Skua and of course the Spitfire)
Here's a reprint of his experience with the Macchi





STORMO! "Acid Test" by D.H. Clarke, D.F.C, A.F.C


The Model Magazine of the Regia Aeronautica and ANR




www.stormomagazine.com

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


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 15, 2022)

yulzari said:


> from the Light Bomber that was itself *based* upon the Battle.


It's that "based on" part that is the problem. 
The light bomber used a small wing in all aspects, not just a Battle wing cut down.
The light bomber did away with the bomb cells inside the wing 
The light bomber used sideways retracting landing gear
The light bomber used a shorter fuselage.
The light bomber used a skinner fuselage without a bomb aimers position in the crew compartment.

They were designed by the same man and the same team.


----------



## yulzari (Aug 15, 2022)

Shortround6 said:


> It's that "based on" part that is the problem.
> The light bomber used a small wing in all aspects, not just a Battle wing cut down.
> The light bomber did away with the bomb cells inside the wing
> The light bomber used sideways retracting landing gear
> ...


True, otherwise it would be an actual Battle. Based upon the experience and engineering of the Battle but designed as you say.Then that was the experience and engineering drawn upon for the Fulmar which had wing guns and folding wings etc. Not conversions of the original but drawing upon the original.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 15, 2022)

yulzari said:


> True, otherwise it would be an actual Battle. Based upon the experience and engineering of the Battle but designed as you say.Then that was the experience and engineering drawn upon for the Fulmar which had wing guns and folding wings etc. Not conversions of the original but drawing upon the original.


The Dauntless/ A-17 was sort of the same. Based on experience and engineering, but not quite the same (nobody tried to use A-17s from carrier decks although they did use them a floatplanes.


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Aug 15, 2022)

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> I fully concede that the SBD was better than the Skua in part _because_ it was a more complete design finished a bit later. The Skua, like the Swordfish and I'd say the Fulmar too, was rushed into action before it was ready, but this is the nature of war.
> 
> However, based on the A-17 design of 1936-38, had there been any real urgency, I believe they could have gotten something much more like the SBD into production earlier, the critical element being the availability of the more powerful R-1820 engine, with the possible other option being the R-1830.


I think the main advantage the A17 had was the normal undercarriage. The “spats” semi retractable style seemed to have some popularity in the 30s. The Devastator and Seversky P-35 come to mind. the only advantage I can see is less damage in a wheels up landing.


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Aug 16, 2022)

Shortround6 said:


> The Dauntless/ A-17 was sort of the same. Based on experience and engineering, but not quite the same (nobody tried to use A-17s from carrier decks although they did use them a floatplanes.



You are certain they didn't share any major components or other design features between A-17 and BT-2/ SBD? A lot of articles suggest a link though I haven't seen very solid evidence. The pictures, especially the fuselage, look similar enough that it gives me doubts that it is just "company culture". Was Jack Northrop the designer in both cases or was it someone else?


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Aug 16, 2022)

Reluctant Poster said:


> I think the main advantage the A17 had was the normal undercarriage. The “spats” semi retractable style seemed to have some popularity in the 30s. The Devastator and Seversky P-35 come to mind. the only advantage I can see is less damage in a wheels up landing.



yeah I agree, and I think that's kind of the idea of that. Plus I think that simpler landing gear isn't as hard to make as the rotating / folding kind like on a Hawk or P-40, and doesn't take up as much wing space as the more conventional type like on a P-51. The landing gear on the B-17 was semi-recessed kind of like that.

Having wheels that still provide some cushion (and maybe still rotate?) in 'up' makes a lot of sense for pilots who are transitioning from fixed undercarriage trainers, which was still an issue for a while into the war.

I also think that the paramount importance of speed above almost all other factors was only slowly beginning to dawn on aircraft designers the world over. The British and Germans just kind of got lucky with the Spitfire and 109 design. I know the legacy of Supermarine and what they learned with the S-6, I am not sure why they made the 109 such a neat, trim little package so that it had such potential for high speed, but they certainly did it.

Other 30s vintage aircraft had similar potential but never got powerful enough engines to really shine. I'm looking at you D.520, Yak-1. Or didn't get them at first, but shined later when an improved engine did finally become available - yes that means you G.50 / 55, MC. 200 / 202 / 205, LaGG-3 / 5 / 7, Yak series etc.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 16, 2022)

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> You are certain they didn't share any major components or other design features between A-17 and BT-2/ SBD? A lot of articles suggest a link though I haven't seen very solid evidence. The pictures, especially the fuselage, look similar enough that it gives me doubts that it is just "company culture". Was Jack Northrop the designer in both cases or was it someone else?


Components were probably similar but not interchangeable but no doubt how this design emerged. Jack Northrop worked with/ for and part of Douglas until he broke out on his own during the late 30s. The BT-1 design was absorbed by Douglas, Ed Heinemann refined the design ns the SBD was born.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Aug 16, 2022)

Ah, really interesting. So Jack Northrop made the original design and Ed Heinemann perfected it. No wonder it worked out so well.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 16, 2022)

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:


> Ah, really interesting. So Jack Northrop made the original design and Ed Heinemann perfected it. No wonder it worked out so well.








The Northrop BT-1 (1935), blueprint for the Dauntless


Before the famous Dauntless was the only Northrop model developed for the Navy, the BT dive bomber, which introduced perforated air brakes.




naval-encyclopedia.com













Douglas SBD Dauntless (1939)


The Douglas SBD Dauntless is one of the most famous and best remembered USN dive bombers of WW2, for good reasons. Here is the complete story.




naval-encyclopedia.com

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


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 16, 2022)

The perforated dive brakes seem to have shown up on the A-17s but only on bottom. 
That is the lower flaps have perforations but the there are no movable upper surfaces. 

The A-17 used a different attack profile. 
It was intended for low altitude strafing and the dispensing of a large number of small bombs (twenty 30lb bombs from internal compartments)
Larger bombs like 100lb bombs were carried outside.


----------



## Wild_Bill_Kelso (Aug 17, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The Northrop BT-1 (1935), blueprint for the Dauntless
> 
> 
> Before the famous Dauntless was the only Northrop model developed for the Navy, the BT dive bomber, which introduced perforated air brakes.
> ...


Wow that naval encyclopedia page is terrific, bookmarked!

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------

