- Thread starter
-
- #581
Kevin J
Banned
Mxdoc Beaufighter aces.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
70 Beaufigter aces is very impressive. Agree with Schweik that I would love to see more stats on Beaufighter if you have them Kevin.
Can anyone recommend any books specifically on the Beaufighter?
Both P-40N and Beaufighter are better than Spitfire VIII if opponents are only A6M and Ki-43, because they have better range than Spit.
Agree on Beaufighter being an unsung hero. The US left drop tanks off of the Wildcat and P47 and the Germans left drop tanks off the Me109. Those are all real head scratchers looking backI still don't understand why the RAF hobbled their fighters by not adopting the widespread use of aux/drop tanks, the Beau was an unsung hero in the Pacific.
I still don't understand why the RAF hobbled their fighters by not adopting the widespread use of aux/drop tanks, the Beau was an unsung hero in the Pacific.
I agree 100% with the fixed pitch prop, low hp, short fields, large internal tank on early Spitfires and Hurricanes being a problem. But, by the time of the Battle of Britain when both fighters got constant speed props it was time to add drop tanks, not for escort missions, but for standing patrols, longer intercepts or longer pursuits after initial contact. I'm sure they would have been helpful at times during the BoB and certainly would have been helpful during the Darwin raids.Which fighters and when?
The Hurricane and Spit were designed to fly out of pea patches using fixed pitch props powered by engines that were throttled well back from full throttle for take-off.
Not to mention they had to maintain a certain weight in order to avoid putting ruts in the grass fields.
Not a recipe for large fuel loads regardless of the type of tanks used.
The airfields did get bigger, the planes got propellers that allowed full power to be used for take-off and even the weight restrictions were relaxed. But it took time and original planes were not sized (or perhaps more properly Stressed) to take large fuel loads. trying to fight a Spitfire with an extra 100 imp gallons crammed into it would probably break the Spitfire.
Photo recon Spits dropped hundreds of pounds worth of guns and ammo and also usually didn't try extreme maneuvers. doing a high speed 2-3 G turn is much less likely to bend/break the wing when overloaded than a 6-7 G turn.
Drop tanks are not really good answer for a plane with small internal tanks as the plane's radius is determined by how far it can fly after dropping the external tank/s and fighting for X minutes.
Beaufighter was bigger than some people's bombers, including the Mosquito.
I still don't understand why the RAF hobbled their fighters by not adopting the widespread use of aux/drop tanks, the Beau was an unsung hero in the Pacific.
I agree 100% with the fixed pitch prop, low hp, short fields, large internal tank on early Spitfires and Hurricanes being a problem. But, by the time of the Battle of Britain when both fighters got constant speed props it was time to add drop tanks, not for escort missions, but for standing patrols, longer intercepts or longer pursuits after initial contact. I'm sure they would have been helpful at times during the BoB and certainly would have been helpful during the Darwin raids.
Drop tanks are not really good answer for a plane with small internal tanks as the plane's radius is determined by how far it can fly after dropping the external tank/s and fighting for X minutes.
Hawker was working on auxiliary tanks for the Hurricane in May 1940. The first Hurricane Mk IIa series 2 aircraft entered squadron service in dec of 1940 and were capable of carrying 2x250lb bombs or 2x45 gallon tanks that could be either fixed or drop tanks. These effectively doubled the combat range of the Hurricane.
That is a very good point, The Hurricane worked around this limitation by making the auxiliary tanks stressed for combat and having them equipped with transfer pumps that would pump fuel to the main tanks in the wing, allowing for two fuel top ups.
The MkXIV could match the 109/190 with the 90G tank fitted.
What do you mean by match?
The 90gal tank was a ferry tank wasn't it?
What do you mean by match?
The 90gal tank was a ferry tank wasn't it?
Yes, in 1941. In 1942 on the Spitfire IX it was a drop tank. On the XIV the only drop tank, so no 30 or 45 gal tanks. So you could retain it in combat if only a third full and performance wise you're equal or superior to a Bf 109G or Fw 190a.
P-38F was plumbed for tanks from the P-38F-1-LO block, and were used by 1st Fighter Group when flying their P-38s to the UK in August 1942. They were definitely in use by P38 groups in the Pacific in 1943.…..I don't believe the P38 was plumbed for drop tanks at that time.....
The Battle of Britain, one of the biggest and most intensive air campaigns of the War. A far higher number of sorties and combats between Spitfires and ME109s than in any campaign mounted by the IJN with Zeros. In total, the Japanese mounted only 97 attacks on Australia during the War, the majority without Zeros, a fraction of the number of raids the Luftwaffe flew in 1940. Care to reconsider your claim "they had trouble coming to battle with the English channel in the way"?…..My point about the Spitfire and Me109 was that they were so short ranged they had trouble coming to battle with the English channel in the way.....
You obviously missed the fact the ME110 was also 20-30mph slower than the Sptfire in the BoB, but still shot down Spitfires using boom'n'zoom tactics. The problems for the ME110s began when Goring insisted they fly close escort rather than freijagd sweeps. The Beau II could certainly have used the same tactics against Spitfires. The Me410 and Mosquito FBVI would also have a speed advantage over a Spitfire V.….. It was 20-30 mph slower than the Spitfire V at Darwin and your plan is to climb above the Spitfire and Boom and Zoom him???....
So the Me410, the Beau, the Mosquito weren't German or British? Try nit-picking less and just admit you were wrong. The Yanks planes were simply added to show other planes that could have done the mission far, far better than the Zero.….. I said, "Nothing the British or Germans had during the war could have flow that mission" and you said "except the Me410, Beaufighter, Mosquito, P38, P51 or P47" Last I checked the P38, P51, and P47 were not British or German.....
I suggest you go read up on Squadron Leader Paul Elwell, who took on five FW190As in a Mosquito FBVI over Cherbourg in 1944, dogfighting them until he ran out of ammo. He shot down one confirmed and one probably destroyed before he broke off and escaped. IIRC, the Banf Wing also had no great problems taking on ME109Gs and FW190As over Norway even as late as 1945. Please try and pretend a tropicalised Spit V was somehow a tougher opponent than a late-model FW190A.…..It has also been proven by the British themselves that the Mosquito was no match for a single engine fighter in one on one combat during the daylight. Yes if you catch someone napping or distracted you can knock him down with a pass from a plane like a Me410, Beaufighter or Mossie, but in a prolonged combat if you don't have a big speed advantage you are toast.
Just about everything you posted.Love to know which of those points you consider incorrect
The Germans could have flown Me262s, it would not have changed the fact the Kriegsmarine didn't have enough ships to defend an invasion fleet against the Royal Navy, nor enough ships to actually carry the invasion force the Wehrmacht required, so zero likelihood we'd have ended up speaking German.Once read a quote from a RAF pilot who said" if the Germans had been flying A6ms in the Battle of Britain we'd all be speaking German right now". While one can agree or disagree with his vision of the outcome under such a scenario it makes the point about how critical range can be for many missions.
Beaufighter was bigger than some people's bombers, including the Mosquito.
An Me110 was not 20-30 mph slower than a Spitfire. It was faster than a Hurricane and just barely slower than a Spitfire with nowhere near the climb rate or maneuverability of either. Essentially when an Me110 got a single engine British fighter on its tail there was no way to shake it off.P-38F was plumbed for tanks from the P-38F-1-LO block, and were used by 1st Fighter Group when flying their P-38s to the UK in August 1942. They were definitely in use by P38 groups in the Pacific in 1943.
The Battle of Britain, one of the biggest and most intensive air campaigns of the War. A far higher number of sorties and combats between Spitfires and ME109s than in any campaign mounted by the IJN with Zeros. In total, the Japanese mounted only 97 attacks on Australia during the War, the majority without Zeros, a fraction of the number of raids the Luftwaffe flew in 1940. Care to reconsider your claim "they had trouble coming to battle with the English channel in the way"?
You obviously missed the fact the ME110 was also 20-30mph slower than the Sptfire in the BoB, but still shot down Spitfires using boom'n'zoom tactics. The problems for the ME110s began when Goring insisted they fly close escort rather than freijagd sweeps. The Beau II could certainly have used the same tactics against Spitfires. The Me410 and Mosquito FBVI would also have a speed advantage over a Spitfire V.
So the Me410, the Beau, the Mosquito weren't German or British? Try nit-picking less and just admit you were wrong. The Yanks planes were simply added to show other planes that could have done the mission far, far better than the Zero.
I suggest you go read up on Squadron Leader Paul Elwell, who took on five FW190As in a Mosquito FBVI over Cherbourg in 1944, dogfighting them until he ran out of ammo. He shot down one confirmed and one probably destroyed before he broke off and escaped. IIRC, the Banf Wing also had no great problems taking on ME109Gs and FW190As over Norway even as late as 1945. Please try and pretend a tropicalised Spit V was somehow a tougher opponent than a late-model FW190A.