Allied Gold-Match

[Soren]

No, but it is 4 x .50's vs. 2 x 20mm's that are being compared. So my numbers are valid, 3200 vs. 1200 = 2.66:1. That is a big difference.

Nope its not, and lets be a little realistic here shall we.

Read this:
While a machine gun bullet relying in kinetic energy has to hit something vital to have an effect (or score so many hits close together that it shreds the structure) - it otherwise just makes small holes - a single cannon strike anywhere on the aircraft can inflict significant damage. It is also argued that a hit by one large cannon shell is more effective than hits by several smaller shells generating the same total damage score, as these will be spread across the aircraft instead of being concentrated at one point.

Now look at the Hispano and .50 cal hit photo I presented. A single 20mm Hispano inflicts surface damage wich is far beyond that of even twenty .50 cal hits, wich btw will be spread. Now think about what an 20mm Hispano AP round will do !

Ahh... but they are not really very useable together. The trajectories differ. Most Spitfire pilots did not fire the cannon and mg's together.

From 0-300y they differ very little, as they both have very straight ballistics at those ranges.

The Corsair could pull some moves the Spit could not,

Wich ? It could roll and dive faster, and thats it.

and it rolled better.

Noticably better than the full wing type, while only slightly better than the CW type.

It could certainly turn well enough to get a firing resolution on the Spitfire at the start of any turn.

Most fighters could RG. The Fw-190 A series probably had he fastest 45 degree banking-turn of any WW2 fighter.

Not according to Boscomb Down (Report No. A.&A.E.E./Res/179 - Mar. 23, 1943):

No according to most books about it.

It seems not. The Corsair also could drop flaps to increase lift and improve turn rates.

RG the CW version didnt turn as tight as the full wing version for obvious reasons, but it still turned alot tighter than the Corsair ! Go ahead and look at the Spit XIV CW's Wing and power loading, and you will see that it is still a very much better T&B fighter !

Full wing version Wing Area: 242 sq ft (22.48 m2).
CW version Wing Area: 231 sqft (21.46 m2).

The reduction in turning ability was minimal !

Also your arguement about the flaps is ridiculous, as every WW2 fighter had that ability !

Below about 8000 feet the Spitfire has a tiny speed advantage, from 8000 to about 26000 feet the F4U-4 is definitely faster, and in the 10000-22000 foot range this is quite substantial.

RG it is at 26,000ft that the Spit XIV has its max speed, at wich it is 2 mph faster than the F4U-4, but 4 mph slower according to your data. (Hardly any difference)

Also, to achieve this kind of performance the Spit XIV had to use +25 lbs of boost, which was a 3 minute rating. The F4U-4 could sutstain this power level for a full 10 minutes (actually 11 minutes but the doc rounds this to 10).

RG the F4U-4 could use its boost for only 5 min.

Which is WRONG!

No its actually quite true.

Here's the relevant pages from the F4U-4 pilot handbook excerpts available at the USN site:

RG your stats are for the post-war R-2800-42W engine with 2,500 hp, while mine is for an engine wich actually took part in WW2, the R-2000-18W engine with 2,350 hp.

The F4U-4 was one of the more important variants of the Corsair. Seven prototypes were built, anticipating the many problems which would arise from the proposed changes. Five F4U-1s were pulled from the production line to be modified into the XF4U-4A, '4B, '4C, '4D and'4E. Two more "FG-1" aircraft (identical to the Vought F4U-1) were pulled from Goodyear's production line. They were all fitted with the Pratt-Whitney R-2800-18W engine which produced 2,100 hp (1,567 kW) and sported a new four blade prop. The engine also had methanol-water injection which boosted the war emergency power rating to 2,350 hp (1,828 kW) for about five minutes. The 18W engine necessitated changes in the basic airframe to handle the extra power and the turbo air intake was mounted on the inside bottom of the engine cowling (it was called a "chin scoop") while air for the intercooler and oil cooler continued to be drawn from the wing slots. The F4U-4 was clocked at a top speed of 446 mph at 26,200 ft.

Source: "Corsair: The F4U in World War II and Korea" by Barrett Tillman and Kenneth A. Walsh.

Also notice that the 4.9 minute climb to 20,000 feet includes capped pylons, so the climb would be a little faster with out them too.

The Spit was still better in the climb, especially a prolonged one !

 

[Anonymous]

The Corsair could pull some moves the Spit could not,

Wich ? It could roll and dive faster, and thats it.

It could also do negative G manuvers and a neg-G into a roll move that few other planes could match.

and it rolled better.

Noticably better than the full wing type, while only slightly better than the CW type.

As pointed out in the RAF study the CW wing was only of advantage to Spitfires with poorly functioning ailerons. Spitfire quality control was not good, planes differed wildly.

Not according to Boscomb Down (Report No. A.&A.E.E./Res/179 - Mar. 23, 1943):

No according to most books about it.

And those books are to be taken over the actual test reports? LOL!

It seems not. The Corsair also could drop flaps to increase lift and improve turn rates.

RG the CW version didnt turn as tight as the full wing version for obvious reasons, but it still turned alot tighter than the Corsair ! Go ahead and look at the Spit XIV CW's Wing and power loading, and you will see that it is still a very much better T&B fighter !

Full wing version Wing Area: 242 sq ft (22.48 m2).
CW version Wing Area: 231 sqft (21.46 m2).

The reduction in turning ability was minimal !

Hmmm... lets do the math....

Spit XIV = 8500 lbs / 242 sf = 35.12 lbs/sf
F4U-4 = 12405 lbs / 314 sf = 39.5 lbs/sf

That's not that different. And the F4U-4 is carrying quite a bit more fuel than the Spit XIV, if we balance that out some the wingloading difference becomes much more equal. Removing the capped pylons alone knocks off 100 lbs. Yes the Spit has an advantage but it's not so substantial.

Also your arguement about the flaps is ridiculous, as every WW2 fighter had that ability !

The Spitfire XIV had 3 flap positions - Up, Down, Full Down. There was no automatic mechanism - if the pilot tried to drop the flaps at too high a speed the hydrolic system would try to do so and the system or the flap could be damaged. The F4U-4 had an automatic flap system which could be deployed to any angle between full up and full down, though there were about 4 or 5 notch points on the selector. The pilot could set the flaps to go full down at any speed, and they would deploy in relation to the airspeed.

Both the Corsair and the P-51 were known to use combat flaps at high speeds. Very few other planes were able to do so.

Below about 8000 feet the Spitfire has a tiny speed advantage, from 8000 to about 26000 feet the F4U-4 is definitely faster, and in the 10000-22000 foot range this is quite substantial.

RG it is at 26,000ft that the Spit XIV has its max speed, at wich it is 2 mph faster than the F4U-4, but 4 mph slower according to your data. (Hardly any difference)

Which is why that altitude is chosen by the authors for the comparison? The best speed for the F4U-4 is found at about 21,500 feet.

What top speed are you using for the Spit XIV?

Also, to achieve this kind of performance the Spit XIV had to use +25 lbs of boost, which was a 3 minute rating. The F4U-4 could sutstain this power level for a full 10 minutes (actually 11 minutes but the doc rounds this to 10).

RG the F4U-4 could use its boost for only 5 min.

Look at the chart - it clearly shows 10 minutes WEP + 10 minutes MP.

Here's the relevant pages from the F4U-4 pilot handbook excerpts available at the USN site:

RG your stats are for the post-war R-2800-42W engine with 2,500 hp, while mine is for an engine wich actually took part in WW2, the R-2000-18W engine with 2,350 hp.

Wrong, the figures I've given are for the R2800-18W, clearly specified in the pilot handbook:

The F4U-4 was one of the more important variants of the Corsair. Seven prototypes were built, anticipating the many problems which would arise from the proposed changes. Five F4U-1s were pulled from the production line to be modified into the XF4U-4A, '4B, '4C, '4D and'4E. Two more "FG-1" aircraft (identical to the Vought F4U-1) were pulled from Goodyear's production line. They were all fitted with the Pratt-Whitney R-2800-18W engine which produced 2,100 hp (1,567 kW) and sported a new four blade prop. The engine also had methanol-water injection which boosted the war emergency power rating to 2,350 hp (1,828 kW) for about five minutes. The 18W engine necessitated changes in the basic airframe to handle the extra power and the turbo air intake was mounted on the inside bottom of the engine cowling (it was called a "chin scoop") while air for the intercooler and oil cooler continued to be drawn from the wing slots. The F4U-4 was clocked at a top speed of 446 mph at 26,200 ft.

Source: "Corsair: The F4U in World War II and Korea" by Barrett Tillman and Kenneth A. Walsh.

Which is clearly wrong in light of the declassified USN pilot handbook data that became available after that book was published in 1979.

=S=

Lunatic

 

[Anonymous]

Any .50 API hit to the fuel tanks and the likely result... KABOOM!

No, they will only rupture it, never make it explode.

What? You mean to tell me you can put magnesium burning at 4000 degrees and a strong oxidizer into a fuel tank with gasoline and not have it go boom? Wow when did the laws of nature change?

and British self-sealing tanks weren't quite as good as US self-sealing tanks.

RG for Christs sake could you cut that pro-U.S. attitude for just ONCE maybe !?

Why are U.S. selfsealing fuel tanks better than British ones ? and what is your source on this ?

US self-sealing tanks are always listed as having been "best in the world". British self-sealing tanks were a little better than the German tanks, but not a lot.

Why are they better? Well, mostly because more material was used to make it self sealing, at the cost of extra weight and some reduction in fuel capacity. But also because the self sealing rubber/plastic compounds were superior. German self sealing tanks were rather poor at altitude, the synthetic rubber stuff they used would freeze and become powdery.

 

[Anonymous]

What? Soren, the .50 API round could penetrate a engine block at least to the crank case from 500 meters.

Yeah at a 90 degree angle ! AS soon as we move onto 40 degree's from vertical or more, its unlikely that its going to penetrate. Also going through the first layer of sheet metal will slow down any incoming .50 cal round.

That is just totally wrong. Why do you think they use the .50 sniper guns for anti-vehicle work? It's because any hit to the engine is very likely to destroy the engine. The typical water jacket along the outside of the pistons on a liquid cooled engine is only about 4-5 mm thick, and its made of soft cast iron. From 90 degrees the .50 AP(I) round would go through the water jacket, through the cylinder wall, through the cylinder wall on the opposite side, knock a valve lifter out of the valve bay, and then maybe pass through the valve bay side of the opposite cylinder jacket and into a cylinder on the opposite side of the engine. A .50 could reach the crankshaft from any angle as long as it did not get stopped by a rod or a camshaft.

Also, HE rounds were shown to do almost zero damage to steel plates as thin as a few mm unless the detonation occures while the round is impacting the plate. Any indirect hit by an HE type 20mm round against the side of an engine block is likely to result in a non-contact detonation and not breech the block at all!

What? R2800's were known to take tremendous damage and continue to run for hundreds of miles. Whole cylinders could be blown off and the plane would keep on flying.

A single 20mm Hispano hit and the engine is GONE !

Again wrong! P-47's, Corsairs, and Hellcats took 20mm hits to the front of the engine and survived frequently durring WWII. Cylinders can be blown completely off and asside from a little oil loss the engine can keep right on running. I think there was more than one case of R2800's flying home missing 3 cylinders.

And again, the Corsair only has the one fuel tank, and comparatively, it is very well protected. It is very unlikely a 20mm HE round would reach the fuel tank, it would take a shot almost strait up from the bottom or at 90 degrees off to either side.

A single 20mm AP round to the fuel tank would blast the Corsair down from the sky, and a 20mm Hispano AP round could easely reach the Corsair's internal fuel tank ![/quote]

The F4U-4 had over 290 lbs of armor plate and was rated "protected" from the rear against 20mm fire. An HE round would be very unlikely to penetrate deeply enough to reach the fuel tank. An AP round could reach it, but not as easily as the .50's will reach any of the fuel tanks on the Spit XIV.

No matter how you shake it, the Spitfire XIV is more susceptable to the guns of the F4U-4 than visa versa.

 

[DaveB.inVa]

There are plenty of cases of radials flying home with lots of stuff missing, not only with fighters but bombers as well. You can't beat a round engine!!

 

[Soren]

It could also do negative G manuvers and a neg-G into a roll move that few other planes could match.

Many Fighters could match that RG, and that includes the Spit XIV. By 42 most Fighters could do these negative G maneuvers.

As pointed out in the RAF study the CW wing was only of advantage to Spitfires with poorly functioning ailerons. Spitfire quality control was not good, planes differed wildly.

Thats ludacris !! And exactly the opposite of what other research results as found them to be !

Hmmm... lets do the math....

Spit XIV = 8500 lbs / 242 sf = 35.12 lbs/sf
F4U-4 = 12405 lbs / 314 sf = 39.5 lbs/sf

That's not that different. And the F4U-4 is carrying quite a bit more fuel than the Spit XIV, if we balance that out some the wingloading difference becomes much more equal. Removing the capped pylons alone knocks off 100 lbs. Yes the Spit has an advantage but it's not so substantial.

Hmmm.. yeah lets do the math "Correctly" this time.

Empty weight Wingloadings and powerloadings:

F4U-4: 4,175.3 kg / 29.17 m2 = 143.13 kg/sq.m.
Spit XIV: 2,994 kg / 22.48 m2 = 133.18 kg/sq.m.
Spit XIV "CW": 2,994 kg(Actual weight would be lower) / 21.46 m2 = 139.59 kg/sq.m.

F4U-4: 2,350 hp / 4,175.5 kg = 0.56 hp/kg.
Spit XIV: 2,050 hp / 2,994 kg = 0.68 hp/kg.
Spit XIV "CW": 2050 hp / 2,994 kg (Actual weight would be lower) = 0.68 hp/kg.

Loaded weight Wingloadings and Powerloadings:

F4U-4: 5,633.6 kg / 29.17 m2 = 193.1 kg/Sq.m.
Spit XIV: 3,855 kg / 22.48 m2 = 171.4 kg/sq.m.
Spit XIV "CW": 3,855 kg (Actual weight would be lower) / 21.46 m2 = 179.6 kg/sq.m.

F4U-4: 2,350 hp / 5,633.6 kg = 0.41 hp/kg.
Spit XIV: 2,050 hp / 3,855 kg = 0.53 hp/kg.
Spit XIV "CW": 2,050 hp / 3,855 kg (Actual weight would be lower) = 0.53 hp/kg.

Its VERY clear who is the better T&B fighter, and who is not !

Spitfire quality control was not good, planes differed wildly.

Hahaha !! Yeah in 1940-41 !!

And those books are to be taken over the actual test reports? LOL!

RG most reports contradict each other ! These books are based on modern measuring methods !

Both the Corsair and the P-51 were known to use combat flaps at high speeds. Very few other planes were able to do so.

Shiden, Bf-109, Frank etc etc all used combat-flaps. Also flaps will decrease speed nomatter how little you apply them, and the slower the Corsair goes the worse it turns ! (This is generally true for all U.S. aircraft)

Why do you think they use the .50 sniper guns for anti-vehicle work?

Because your most likely going to hit thin metal at 90 degrees with "Uranium" bullets ! Thats right the Barrett uses depleted Uranium rounds against lightly armored viechles and such. At 60 degrees from vertical the normal .50 cal AP round will penetrate very little armor, and surely not a 1-1.5cm thick engine-block. (A typical European car's engine-block is normally 10-15mm thick, and 5-6mm at the thinnest areas)

Again wrong! P-47's, Corsairs, and Hellcats took 20mm hits to the front of the engine and survived frequently durring WWII.

No again I am right ! Its amazing you will even mention this, as there's a Gigantic difference between being hit by a 20mm 128g "HE" shell with a V0 of 600m/s from a Type 99, than by a 20mm 160g "AP" shell with a V0 of 860m/s from a Hispano !

Jap Cannons werent at all effective against armored parts, and would penetrate very little ! On the other hand a Hispano AP round will take out a Corsair engine with a single shot !

An AP round from a Hispano cannon will go straight through the R2800 engine ! And if the engine doesnt blow up, it certainly is in such a bad shape that it will not be able to pull the plane through any evasive maneuvers.

What? You mean to tell me you can put magnesium burning at 4000 degrees and a strong oxidizer into a fuel tank with gasoline and not have it go boom? Wow when did the laws of nature change?

If that was the case, then it would have been alot smarter to just use small caliber fast firing machine-guns with API rounds for Fighter vs Fighter purposes.

A self-sealing fuel tank hit by a 20mm Hispano round (AP or HE), will always go BOOM.

The F4U-4 had over 290 lbs of armor plate and was rated "protected" from the rear against 20mm fire.

Yeah, "Jap" 20mm fire ! It wont last one bit against a Hispano hit !

But also because the self sealing rubber/plastic compounds were superior

Source ?!

Look at the chart - it clearly shows 10 minutes WEP + 10 minutes MP.

RG why would two books specifically about the Corsair underestimate the WEP time ?? (Im beginning to seriusly doubt these Internet documents !)

 

[Anonymous]

Hmmm.. yeah lets do the math "Correctly" this time.

Um, your math and my math are identical except you chose to use metric where I used english measurments? How does that make Your figures more "correct" than mine?

BTW: the R2800-18W made 2450 BHP, not 2350 BHP, though this makes only a minor difference, raising the F4U-4 p/w ratio to 0.44 hp/kg.

The best documented Spit XIV climb to 20,000 feet I've been able to find is 5.1 minutes, for a plane 100 lbs below standard takeoff weight. This compares to 4.9 minutes to 20,000 feet for the F4U-4 at full takeoff weight and sporting two capped pylons. And on top of that, US climb tests are done from brake off, British climb tests are usually done from wheels up, a difference of about 15-20 seconds. How do you explain this? And how is it that the F4U-4, with capped pylons, is also faster than the Spitfire at most altitudes (except very low, and even there the Spit is not much faster) up to 28,000 feet? And with the capped pylons removed, it is faster to over 30,000 feet, significantly so through most of the altitude range!

And to achieve this performance, the Spitfire is overboosting to +25lbs. The F4U-4 could also drive higher levels of manifold pressure, but no specs are available for that. This was simply a matter of the "purple passion" fuel being available.

And on top of that, the Boscomb Down tests used meticulously prepared aircraft flown by top test pilots, where the USN pilot handbook data is taken from active squadron aircraft, usually flown by 3 fresh flight school grads and one instructor. (British pilot instruction books were similar)

Spitfire quality control was not good, planes differed wildly.

Hahaha !! Yeah in 1940-41 !!

WRONG! I already gave you the tests info in an earlier post in this thread. Boscomb Down Report No. A.&A.E.E./Res/179 - Mar. 23, 1943

{w.r.t. clipped wing effectiveness and the Report quoted which shows that it was plane dependant because of poor Q/A which Soren disputes.}

Soren said:
No according to most books about it.

And those books are to be taken over the actual test reports? LOL!

RG most reports contradict each other ! These books are based on modern measuring methods !

Surely you are joking. What modern tests have been done to measure this? NONE! This was a British test with definitative results - the clipped wings were useful only on individual planes that rolled poorly, on other individual planes with non-clipped wings that did not roll poorly, the clipped wings gave no significant advantage in roll rate and reduced both climb and turn performance. Clearly the conclusion was that for future production, where better Q/A was expected, clipped wings were not advised.

Both the Corsair and the P-51 were known to use combat flaps at high speeds. Very few other planes were able to do so.

Shiden, Bf-109, Frank etc etc all used combat-flaps. Also flaps will decrease speed nomatter how little you apply them, and the slower the Corsair goes the worse it turns ! (This is generally true for all U.S. aircraft)

First off, as far as I know only the P-51 was able to drop flaps (5 degrees) at speeds above 350 IAS. The Corsair was one of the few planes that could drop flaps a few degrees at speeds above 300 IAS. Furthermore, as far as I know, only the Corsair and the Shiden had automatic flaps.

On the P-51, 5% flaps could be dropped with a relatively small increase in drag and a significant increase in lift/turn. On the Corsair, the flaps could be set to auto mode and would deploy to maximize a turn, very similar to what was done on the Shiden. It should also be noted that quite a few F4U-1's were lost or damaged because of this feature which, on landing could decide to retract the flaps at a bad moment, and as a result on earlier models this feature was usually disabled in the field.

Why do you think they use the .50 sniper guns for anti-vehicle work?

Because your most likely going to hit thin metal at 90 degrees with "Uranium" bullets ! Thats right the Barrett uses depleted Uranium rounds against lightly armored viechles and such. At 60 degrees from vertical the normal .50 cal AP round will penetrate very little armor, and surely not a 1-1.5cm thick engine-block. (A typical European car's engine-block is normally 10-15mm thick, and 5-6mm at the thinnest areas)

Umm, first off depleted uranium ammo is only used for special circumstances. The normal .50 API round is considered capable of destroying most vehicles with a single hit to the engine at ranges up to 1000 meters. Given the accuracy of the weapon, which is not sufficent to hit a man reliably at 600 meters, there is no way to count on a 90 degree hit.

A typical Euro car engine block is made of aluminum, so it may well be 15mm thick. But for a cast Iron block, this is excessively thick, even for an aircraft engine. Even so, a .50 API round would penetrate or at least crack a 15mm cast iron block even at striking angles of 60 degrees. Cast iron is not steel, it is not as strong, and it is much more brittle.

Again wrong! P-47's, Corsairs, and Hellcats took 20mm hits to the front of the engine and survived frequently durring WWII.

No again I am right ! Its amazing you will even mention this, as there's a Gigantic difference between being hit by a 20mm 128g "HE" shell with a V0 of 600m/s from a Type 99, than by a 20mm 160g "AP" shell with a V0 of 860m/s from a Hispano !

Boy, your data on these guns is way wrong. The Japanese Type 99-Mod2 20mm cannon, in service from 1943 on as the main IJN 20mm, was quite comprable to the Hispano, other than having an intial velocity of ~750 m/s (as opposed to 807 m/s). While this makes some difference, it is not nearly so huge as you indicate.

For the Hispano II, here are the real weights, velocties (measured at 90 feet), and penetration data:

Hispano II -                                s1     s2    s3    s4    plate   -  total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SAP/I -             133 grams - 853 m/s      |  5% |  24% | 36% |  9%  #  0%  -  74%
AP Mk.II -          140 grams - 807 m/s      |  7% |  16% | 22% | 24%  # 18%  -  87%
BALL -              125.5 grams - 860 m/s    |  4% |  11% | 11% | 72%  #  0%  -  98%
HE/I/T (fuse 254) - 120 grams - 868 m/s    All detonated at fuselage.  All frags except
                                             one spent on sheet 1; one spent on sheet 2.
HE/I (fuse 253) -   130 grams - 860 m/s    All detonated at sheet 1.  All frags spent
                                             on sheet 2.

Where test layout is a sheet of 24 gauge dural followed by four sheets of 6 swg mild steel followed by an 8mm HH armor plate at 2' spacings. Firing range = 200 yards, angle = 0 (perpendicular). Percentages show the weight of the rounds recovered behind each sheet/plate.
HE/I type rounds were found to cause fires in unarmored self-sealing fuel tanks (German) for 31% of hits.
Source: O.R.S. Ref. F.T. 260 - July 1942 - ORFORDESS RESEARCH STATION
Firing Trials of 20mm H.S. Ammunition Part I. Attack of Aircraft Targets.
M.A.P. Ref: SB 13888 dated 7.3.42 and 19.5.42 (with handwritten notes dated 23.12.42)

Clearly, while the AP ammo was able to penetrate 24mm of HH armor at 200 yards @ 0 degrees (perpendicular), when put into realistic aircraft conditions the penetration is drastically reduced. The report indicates this is because of the yaw of the round. Combine this with more realistic striking angles and the chances of penetrating even the minimum 9.5mm tempered armor of the F4U-4 is quite small.

Jap Cannons werent at all effective against armored parts, and would penetrate very little ! On the other hand a Hispano AP round will take out a Corsair engine with a single shot !

Based on the info above it is extremely unlikely a Hispano round of any type fired from behind would penetrate to the engine. If it did, it would quite likely be mostly spent and do only limited damage. Only on hits from extreme deflection from the side, or from H2H attacks (foolish for the Spit given this matchup), would the Hispano round likely hit the engine w/o having to penetrate at least 18 gauge dural, probably at least one structural member, and then tempered armor plate (much better than HH) ranging from 9.5 mm to 19 mm.

An AP round from a Hispano cannon will go straight through the R2800 engine ! And if the engine doesnt blow up, it certainly is in such a bad shape that it will not be able to pull the plane through any evasive maneuvers.

And a .50 round will penetrate the Griffon just as easily. But unlike the R-2800, almost every hit will result in a destroyed engine. Once the water jacket is breeched, the engine is finished, and the pilot is flooded with steam and cannot see. The R2800 can take a 20mm hit and even if it looses a couple of cylinders it can still likely generate good power for over a hundred miles.

Furthermore the Corsair supercharge and fuel system are much much less exposed than that of the Spit XIV. On the R2800 these all on the back of the engine, but on the Griffon the carb and one stage of the supercharger are on the top of the engine!

What? You mean to tell me you can put magnesium burning at 4000 degrees and a strong oxidizer into a fuel tank with gasoline and not have it go boom? Wow when did the laws of nature change?

If that was the case, then it would have been alot smarter to just use small caliber fast firing machine-guns with API rounds for Fighter vs Fighter purposes.

No, because the API round has to penetrate the fuel tank, and .303 class API rounds cannod reliably do that.

A self-sealing fuel tank hit by a 20mm Hispano round (AP or HE), will always go BOOM.

Not hardly. AP is ineffective period.

For AP/I against an unarmored tank, no fires were generated out of 8 hits (4 above and 4 below the fuel level), evidently the incendiary did not ignite. Against a tank protected by 6 s.w.g. mild steel, of 2 hits above the fuel level 1 caused a fire, and of 14 below the fuel level 4 caused fires (one outside the tank on the exit hole - probably would not have started a fire on a flying plane). Against 8 s.w.g and 10 s.w.g. protection of 9 hits none started fires. Against 14 and 16 mm HH armor, approximately 20-30% of hits started fires. Against 18mm armor, only one of 20 hits caused a fire.

For HE/I/T against unarmored fuel tanks of 50 rounds 16 started fires, and for HE/I of 72 rounds only 24 started fires. For HE/I against 6mm HH armor 9 rounds caused 3 fires, against 8mm HH armor 12 rounds caused 5 fires, and against 9mm HH armor 5 rounds caused no fires.

As you can see, Hispano hits against fuel tanks did not mean a sure fire, in fact, the odds against a well protected fuel tank like on the Corsair would be quite small.

The F4U-4 had over 290 lbs of armor plate and was rated "protected" from the rear against 20mm fire.

Yeah, "Jap" 20mm fire ! It wont last one bit against a Hispano hit !

I've shown you that this is not true above.

But also because the self sealing rubber/plastic compounds were superior

Source ?!

I'll get into this some time soon. But it is a fact. US self sealing tanks at the start of WWII were better than anyone elses tanks at the end of the war.

Look at the chart - it clearly shows 10 minutes WEP + 10 minutes MP.

RG why would two books specifically about the Corsair underestimate the WEP time ?? (Im beginning to seriusly doubt these Internet documents !)

It's not an "Internet Document". Geeze I've given you the source, the US Navy FIA complaince website. What source could be more valid than the classified pilots handbook - used by pilots and mission planners. What is the point of giving documents to your pilots that are incorrect? Especially documents you never expect the public to see! I can see you doubting the 4th fighter group documents, or other documents where the data has been complied - but how can you "doubt" this? You're just being silly!

Because those books were written before the FIA compelled the US Navy to declassify and make available the actual data. The US military gave out Military Power or Normal power data to the public at the end of WWII for most fighters - they didn't want to give away the real specs. Then being the paranoids that is their nature, they didn't declassify it until they were forced to when the FIA laws came into play, which require information to be made public after 50 years unless congress votes specifically to keep it secret. This is further confused by some data being published regaurding performance using lower grade fuel.

It is so clear you must be able to see it. Look at the chart (attached), most of the figures you commonly see associated with the F4U-4 are right there!

=S=

Lunatic

 

[KraziKanuK]

Luni,

why do you claim specs for a 25lb boost Spit when it is for an 18lb boost Spit? The XIV was only cleared for 21lb boost.

The a/c tested was 8400lb. Take-off weight is 8288.5lb (StH) which does not include the pilot.

Clipping wings on the Spit was not done to poorly rolling a/c. Spits were produced with clipped wings until the end. No doubt you will say that QA was crappy to the end now.

"meticulously prepared aircraft"

Most were modified from other marks and well used. Where do you think that data came from in the Pilot's Handbook for the F4U? From factory/Service prepared a/c tests.

So the Americans never produced 'rogue' a/c. Now why were a/c tested before delivery? Give me a break.

The 109 had infinite flap adjustment from full up to full down.

 

[Anonymous]

Luni,

why do you claim specs for a 25lb boost Spit when it is for an 18lb boost Spit? The XIV was only cleared for 21lb boost.

I used the most favorable data for the Spit XIV I could find, which included +25 lbs speed data for the XIV at low altitude, +18 lbs speed data above that. Refs below:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit14speedns.jpg
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit14+25lbs.jpg
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/jf319.html

The a/c tested was 8400lb. Take-off weight is 8288.5lb (StH) which does not include the pilot.

Loaded weight is given as 8500 lbs, takeoff weight was 8400 lbs.

Clipping wings on the Spit was not done to poorly rolling a/c. Spits were produced with clipped wings until the end. No doubt you will say that QA was crappy to the end now.

I did not say it was done to tested planes only in the field, only that tests indicated that it gave no benifit to those units that rolled well without clipped wings. In the field, it was done or not done on a squadron by squardon basis, or in some cases I think as requested by the pilot on later Spits with the newer wings with removable/attachable wingtips.

Yes, Q/A was not great right up through 1943 and into 1944. Britian was very pressed to maximise production even at the cost of quality. It is not uncommon to see comments by Spitfire pilots reassigned to P-51's about the much better fit and finish quality of the P-51. The same is true concerning the RR vs. Packard Merlins.

"meticulously prepared aircraft"

Most were modified from other marks and well used. Where do you think that data came from in the Pilot's Handbook for the F4U? From factory/Service prepared a/c tests.

That is wrong. They came from operational aircraft, usually from a training base which had recently recieved the new aircraft, or from a US based squadron (either new or on rotation) which had just recieved new aircraft.

How do I know this? My Dad conducted these tests for several USN aircraft, both when a flight instructor at Pensacola and as a squadron CO. Four planes would be taken up, the best and worst were normally not counted and the mid two averaged unless one had mech problems, in which case the other 3 were averaged or the test was voided and redone. The aircraft were in good, relatively new condition, but they were not polished up specially and the engines were not tweaked for the test. The intent was to give the pilot a reasonable idea of what he should expect from the aircraft, not to find out what the maximum potential might be (as in the Boscomb Down tests) or to make the company look good (as for Mfg tests). Again, I would point out that I believe the manuals given to actual British pilots most likely reflected the same info w.r.t. the plane in question, rather than the Boscomb Down info which presents unrealistically favorable stats and would be misleading. It makes no sense to give your pilots info which might get them killed if they rely upon it in combat.

So the Americans never produced 'rogue' a/c. Now why were a/c tested before delivery? Give me a break.

Yes they most certianly were tested, much more thorougly and to much more stringent acceptance standards than the Spitfires. It was a matter of priorities, not capability. The British simply needed as many planes as fast as possible, so quality suffered in some respects and the acceptance standards were lower. It's not a dig at the British Kanuk, it just reflects their priorities which differed from the American priorities. And this is not to say that no "rouge" a/c slipped by American Q/A, just that acceptance standards were higher because the US had the luxory to be more demanding than the Brits did.

The 109 had infinite flap adjustment from full up to full down.

How is this relevant to my comments on flaps? I never said anything about the flap control of the 109, other than that it was not automatic and as far as I know it had a maximum deployment speed of well under 300 IAS (like almost every other WWII fighter).

=S=

Lunatic

 

[Soren]

Um, your math and my math are identical except you chose to use metric where I used english measurments? How does that make Your figures more "correct" than mine?

Because I applied Power-loading aswell !

BTW: the R2800-18W made 2450 BHP, not 2350 BHP, though this makes only a minor difference, raising the F4U-4 p/w ratio to 0.44 hp/kg

All my books, both specifically about the plane and those that mention only its stats, quote 2,350 hp. While only one book quotes 2,450 hp just once, and then a stretch down the page it quotes 2,350 hp. So since the far majority (if not all) of the latest books about the plane quotes it as being 2,350 hp, it has to be 2,350 hp.

Yes they most certianly were tested, much more thorougly and to much more stringent acceptance standards than the Spitfires. It was a matter of priorities, not capability. The British simply needed as many planes as fast as possible, so quality suffered in some respects and the acceptance standards were lower.

Im going to need a source that specifically says this, cause that is simply just a big load of Bias !

Yes, Q/A was not great right up through 1943 and into 1944. Britian was very pressed to maximise production even at the cost of quality. It is not uncommon to see comments by Spitfire pilots reassigned to P-51's about the much better fit and finish quality of the P-51.

Please quote example !

WRONG! I already gave you the tests info in an earlier post in this thread. Boscomb Down Report No. A.&A.E.E./Res/179 - Mar. 23, 1943

Show me the original document, and all additional pages.

I own practically every newly published book about the Spitfire and all its versions, and your absurd claim of poor quality isnt at all mentioned in any of them. All that is mentioned, is that quality was slightly decreased during BoB.

Because those books were written before the FIA compelled the US Navy to declassify and make available the actual data.

RG, the books are written in 1996 and 2002 (Plus others from year 2000 and beyond), so there goes that theory !

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

About the Climb rates;

RG please tell me how the Corsair with inferior Power and wing-loading stats, can outclimb the Spit XIV.e wich has much superior Power and Wing-loading stats ?! Thats right, it CAN'T !!

Not only does the Spit's engine and propeller have to pull alot less weight, but the wing also carries alot less weight pr sq.m ! = Better climb and turn-rate !
Now if your going to deny this, then your denying the bloody laws of gravity !

Also the best initial Climb rate the F4U-4 can achieve is 4,170 ft/min, times four this doesnt even equal 20,000 ft ! Now your not going to tell me that the F4U-4 can climb at 4,170 ft/min for a whole 20,000 ft now are you ?

The F4U-4's real Climb rate time is 7.5 min to 20,000ft as quoted in all specific books about it, and the Spit XIV's climb rate is 7.0 min to 20,000ft.

I'll get into this some time soon. But it is a fact. US self sealing tanks at the start of WWII were better than anyone elses tanks at the end of the war.

Sorry but now your babbling. First you claim the U.S. fuel-tanks were better than all others, and then you change it to "At the start of WWII U.S. Fuel-tanks were better than anyone elses tanks at the end of the war" Wich makes me go " Huh ?"

Not hardly. AP is ineffective period.

A 20mm Hispano AP round will blow a selfsealing fuel-tank with one shot RG, as the caliber and force of the round is simply to great for the tank to hold !

Also RG, if the Hispano AP round will go through 24mm of 0 degree "armor" at 400y, then it will also go through the Corsair's tail section and straight into the engine ! The thin layer of skin on any WW2 fighter has absolutely no effect on a 20mm AP round comming at 807m/s !

And as for the difference between being hit by a .50 cal and a Hispano; Look very closely at the pic at the bottom of the page ! (You can fit more than twenty to thirty .50 cal rounds inside that hole !)

It is quite clear that single 20mm Hispano hit on one of the Corsairs wings, and it is uncapable of making any evasive manuevers ! Also if the Cosair gets hit on the tail by the Hispano, its likely going to lose alot of it !

 

[Anonymous]

I'm going to break this up into multiple replies. First.. about the F4U-4.

BTW: the R2800-18W made 2450 BHP, not 2350 BHP, though this makes only a minor difference, raising the F4U-4 p/w ratio to 0.44 hp/kg

All my books, both specifically about the plane and those that mention only its stats, quote 2,350 hp. While only one book quotes 2,450 hp just once, and then a stretch down the page it quotes 2,350 hp. So since the far majority (if not all) of the latest books about the plane quotes it as being 2,350 hp, it has to be 2,350 hp.

To answer this I'll have to go into a bit of Corsair history. You can contact the Vought Heritage museum and purchase copies of the orginals of these documents since I'm sure nothing else will convince you of their authenticity. Please excuse the poor quality of the scans.

In 1943 till the end of 1944 the USA had intended to supply the USN and USAAF with 150 octane fuel in the PTO by early 1945 at the latest. Based upon this, Vought performance testing and USN acceptance testing of the F4U-4 were based upon use of 150 octane fuel and a Combat Power (WEP) rating of 70 inches manifold pressure. And it turns out I do have the specs for that! The following Vought document pages reflect this performance:

As can be seen form these pages, at SL the climb rating was 2530 BHP, the max level speed rating was 2540 BHP, and the rated power was 2650 BHP! The 2050 BHP figure for the Griffon is rated power.

Anyway, near the end of 1944, given the huge performance gap that had become apparent between US and Japanese aircraft, the decision was made not to divert any 150 octane fuel to the PTO until the war in Europe was won. In April 1945, Vought and the USN issued revised data reflecting 115 octane performance, as shown below:

As can be seen in the chart the power rating at SL is about 2450 BHP for speed and 2300 BHP for climb. Rated power is about 2350 BHP.

Now, you really don't think it is legitimate to compare the Spitfire XIV using 150 octane fuel while the F4U-4 is using 115 octane fuel do you?

It would be quite legitimate to use the 2650 BHP figure for this comparison, and the 2540 BHP figure is totally reasonable. 2450 BHP is the proper 115 octane fuel performance figure.

=S=

Lunatic

 

[Anonymous]

Show me the original document, and all additional pages.

Sure - I will expect you to present such data upon request as well! 8)

-------------------------------

 

[Anonymous]

Yes they most certianly were tested, much more thorougly and to much more stringent acceptance standards than the Spitfires. It was a matter of priorities, not capability. The British simply needed as many planes as fast as possible, so quality suffered in some respects and the acceptance standards were lower.

Im going to need a source that specifically says this, cause that is simply just a big load of Bias !

No it is not. The whole production methodology of the Spitfire was poorly oriented to good quality control. Each Spitfire was built pretty much in one spot, side by side with other units. The people building one Spitfire were different than those building the one next to it, and so were the tools they were using. Each such variance leads to variations in quality. Look at the photos below (which are on my webspace and will have to be removed for copyright reasons soon):

You can see the classic British production system that is known for poor quality control. US aircraft were produced on "modern" production lines:

The workers did their jobs on each plane and then it moved on along a track to the next worker(s). Thus the workers were much more specialized, and uniform quality could be maintained. If there was a problem with how some part of the plane was assembled, it was pretty easy to track it down to one of 3 sets of employee's that manned that assembly station and straiten it out. Also, the next assembly station would catch the poor workmenship immeadiately.

You are making way too much out of my comment about the variance in quality of Spitfire manufacture. I'm not saying the planes were shoddily built, but rather that there was somewhat less attention to minor details and the production method did not generate the kind of uniformity that US production methods did. And also they were under more pressure to produce quickly in an environment not well suited to it.

Seriously, there is no disputing that when it came to mass production during the WWII time frame the USA was the absolute master both in terms of quantity and quality.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Because those books were written before the FIA compelled the US Navy to declassify and make available the actual data.

RG, the books are written in 1996 and 2002 (Plus others from year 2000 and beyond), so there goes that theory !

If that is the case they they are based on very poor research. Or they are confining thier figures to 115 octane fuel since that is what the Corsair used until the very last couple of months of the war (carrier Corsairs got 150 octane fuel for Kamikaze intercept duty).

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

About the Climb rates;

RG please tell me how the Corsair with inferior Power and wing-loading stats, can outclimb the Spit XIV.e wich has much superior Power and Wing-loading stats ?! Thats right, it CAN'T !!

Not only does the Spit's engine and propeller have to pull alot less weight, but the wing also carries alot less weight pr sq.m ! = Better climb and turn-rate !
Now if your going to deny this, then your denying the bloody laws of gravity !

Also the best initial Climb rate the F4U-4 can achieve is 4,170 ft/min, times four this doesnt even equal 20,000 ft ! Now your not going to tell me that the F4U-4 can climb at 4,170 ft/min for a whole 20,000 ft now are you ?

First off, the R-2800 @ 70" boost has a much better HP curve for altitude than the Griffon 65. It produced 2400 BHP or more for climb all the way up to about 16,500 feet and is still producing 2200 BHP as it passes through 20,000 feet. It's huge supercharger was capable of producing nearly the full 70" over a much wider range than the Griffon's supercharger could even sustain +18 lbs boost, let alone +25 lbs.

(blower and engine)

Second, the F4U-4 prop 13'2" forbladed prop is more efficient than the Spitfire's 10'5" five bladed prop. The 5 bladed prop gives some advantage at very high altitude, but to almost 30K the Corsair prop is better.

Third, the F4U-4 wings produce more lift than the very thin Spitfire wings.

And if you look at the USN charts it is clear that the initial RoC is about 4800 fpm, not the 4170 fpm you quote. It remains at 4800 fpm till over 10,000 feet and then drops off to 3800 fpm at 20,000 feet. I must admit Vought charts do not look quite so favorable, showing about a 4500 fpm climb to 10K, but it still shows 20k in 5 minutes. I'll try to post that chart tommarow (actually later today )

Look at my previous post. Both Vought in 1944 and the USN in 1946 give very similar data. I really don't see how you can argue that the USN data is not correct.

The F4U-4's real Climb rate time is 7.5 min to 20,000ft as quoted in all specific books about it, and the Spit XIV's climb rate is 7.0 min to 20,000ft.

Yes, the F4U-4 climb to 20K was 7.5 minutes - UNDER NORMAL POWER! At 70" boost it was 4.9 minutes. Both Vought and the USN confirm it.

Sorry but now your babbling. First you claim the U.S. fuel-tanks were better than all others, and then you change it to "At the start of WWII U.S. Fuel-tanks were better than anyone elses tanks at the end of the war" Wich makes me go " Huh ?"

This was one of the things the USA focused heavily upon prior to the war as part of the attempt to build bombers so tough they could fight off enemy fighters w/o escorts. German self-sealing tanks were poor (the synthetic rubber stuff in them turned to powder at altitude), and the British just started into self-sealing tanks at the start of the hostilities and borrowed US tech early on - but their fighters were too small to support the full setup. Niether the Russians or the Japanese had much in the way of ss tanks throughout the war.

Not hardly. AP is ineffective period.

A 20mm Hispano AP round will blow a selfsealing fuel-tank with one shot RG, as the caliber and force of the round is simply to great for the tank to hold !

If it can reach it.

Also RG, if the Hispano AP round will go through 24mm of 0 degree "armor" at 400y, then it will also go through the Corsair's tail section and straight into the engine ! The thin layer of skin on any WW2 fighter has absolutely no effect on a 20mm AP round comming at 807m/s !

Grrrr. At the muzzle it's got 807 m/s velocity. By 400 yards its down to about 600 m/s. Then it has to pass through the duraluminum skin, half a dozen ST24 brackings, and then 19mm of tempered steel rear armor plate, and then it will probably have to pass through at least two more sheets of ST24 and possibly 9.5 mm of bulkhead armor before it reaches the fuel tank. Even if it misses the 9.5 mm bulkhead armor, it's not going to reach the fuel tank.

As I showed you before, AP penetration drops radically if it has to pass through anything prior to striking the a plate, even at 0 degrees. Less than 20% of Hispano AP rounds penetrated just 8 mm of HH armor plate at 0 degrees from just 200 yards after passing through a thin sheet of dural and 4 thin sheets of mild steel, and 55% were stopped before passing through the 4th thin sheet of mild steel! How is it going to make it through 19mm of much better tempered plate after passing through all the structural support in the rear fuselage of the Corsair? It's not!

And as for the difference between being hit by a .50 cal and a Hispano; Look very closely at the pic at the bottom of the page ! (You can fit more than twenty to thirty .50 cal rounds inside that hole !)

Well, I don't believe that is a Hispano hit. Looks like an AA hit to me. The amount of HE held in a Hispano HE round is about 10 grams (varies depending upon exact round type). 10 grams of HE is about the size of three sugar cubes. When HE explodes, it expands to about 1000x its size. 3000 sugar cubes is about a block 15 x 15 x 15 sugar cubes, or roughly the size of a small to average grapefruit. That hole is bigger than that.

This time it's your turn - produce the proof that is a Hispano hit!

It is quite clear that single 20mm Hispano hit on one of the Corsairs wings, and it is uncapable of making any evasive manuevers ! Also if the Cosair gets hit on the tail by the Hispano, its likely going to lose alot of it !

You vastly underestimate the toughness of the Corsair's construction. Do not compare it to a German fuselage section, they are not comprable.

 

[Soren]

No it is not. The whole production methodology of the Spitfire was poorly oriented to good quality control. Each Spitfire was built pretty much in one spot, side by side with other units. The people building one Spitfire were different than those building the one next to it, and so were the tools they were using. Each such variance leads to variations in quality.

You can't be serius RG !! By 1942 all the men working on those aircraft were more than qualified. Also tools didn't differ, only under a very powerful microscope ! Oh and btw, English and German tools were the best in the world at that time !

Also you still havent provided any source that specifically verifies your claim !

Seriously, there is no disputing that when it came to mass production during the WWII time frame the USA was the absolute master both in terms of quantity and quality

Not in quality.

Grrrr. At the muzzle it's got 807 m/s velocity. By 400 yards its down to about 600 m/s.

And the merit of this comment is ? The Hispano AP round will penetrate 24mm of 0 degree "ARMOR" at 400y (This is at approx. 600m/s), so at 0-400y it will also reach the Corsair's engine !

Anyhow the Hispano's HE rounds would be more than enough, and would inflict lethal damage to the Corsair after just a couple of hits !

Second, the F4U-4 prop 13'2" forbladed prop is more efficient than the Spitfire's 10'5" five bladed prop. The 5 bladed prop gives some advantage at very high altitude, but to almost 30K the Corsair prop is better.

The Corsair's prop isnt at all superior !

Third, the F4U-4 wings produce more lift than the very thin Spitfire wings.

First of all the Spit's wings arent thin, only at the tips ! Also the Spit's wings are very wide, wich helps produce more lift.

Secondly the Corsairs wings won't produce more lift than the Spit's, as they are bent, and at the inner part of the wing on the leading edge are intakes, all of wich reduces lift ! Plus the Corsair's wings are also thin at the tips, just like the Spit's (Although not equally thin). Additionally the Spit's wings have an airfoil shape wich is more "Curved" than the Corsair's, wich in return equals more lift pr m2.

So both the Spit's Wing and lift-loading is better !

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anyhow lets go ahead and try to compare the two Fighters with your stats:

F4U-4 Corsair loaded Wing and power-loading:

Wing-loading: 5,633.6 kg / 29.17 m2 = 193.12 kg/sq.m.

Power-loading: 2,650 hp / 5,633.6 kg = 0.47 hp/kg.

Spitfire Mk.XIV loaded Wing and power-laoding:

Wing-loading: 3,810 kg / 22.48 m2 = 169.48 kg/sq.m.

Power-loading: 2050 hp / 3,810 kg = 0.54 hp/kg.

Even with these outrageous stats the Spit XIV is still very much superior !

 

[Anonymous]

No it is not. The whole production methodology of the Spitfire was poorly oriented to good quality control. Each Spitfire was built pretty much in one spot, side by side with other units. The people building one Spitfire were different than those building the one next to it, and so were the tools they were using. Each such variance leads to variations in quality.

You can't be serius RG !! By 1942 all the men working on those aircraft were more than qualified. Also tools didn't differ, only under a very powerful microscope ! Oh and btw, English and German tools were the best in the world at that time !

You are showing you do not understand industrial production methodology of the period. There were basically two systems in place. One was the traditional craftsmen method as had been used in Europe for centuries where each item is manufactured individually by a small team of workers who encompass all the necessary skillls, which was the primary system used in Britain. The other was the Modern Assembly line system as invented by Henry Ford and used in USA, where the product moves along a conveyor system and small teams of workers with very specialized skills work on each item as it passes through their station doing a very specific set of tasks. Each system has advantages and disadvantages.

The advantage to the European system was that you could get a level of "hand made" craftsmenship that tends to be missing or to feel artificial in the assembly line system, though this is usually not advantagous for mass-production items. The disadvantage is that quality variance is high. Often, two "identical" units cannot swap parts. Another disadvantage is that quite often the records regaurding who really did what in a busy factory were not accurately maintained, so if down the line it was found certain units had a common defect, it was very hard to figure out who was responsible so they could be instructed on how to correct the defect.

The advantages to the assembly line system were speed of production, uniformity of production, and the minimization of the skill requirement for labor. The disadvantage was that a defect that did slip through the q/a process tended to apply to most or all the units produced - there were fewer people involved in the production process capable of spotting such a defect since skills did not overlap so much as in the European system. However, when a defect was identified it could usually be tracked down to a few responsible individuals. Typically for US plants which ran in 3 shifts, the shift making the error could be identified and the problem rectified rather easily. However in a few cases, such as the US AN-M1 and a large part of the AN-M2 Hispano production, the flaw in the breech clearances was endemic at the managment/engineering level which resisted taking responsibility and as a result a huge number of unreliable guns were produced.

As far as the English and Germans having the "best tools in the world" at that time this is only true when looked at in a small context. Yes, the British an the Germans did have some advanced tools, but to a very large degree these were advanced versions of tools dating back to the 1700's, known as "shaper" tools, which are simplistically described as very advanced grinders.

Shaper tools require extremely skilled "guildsmen" who spent their lives learning how to operate them to produce precision components. Even then, because of the individual nature of the crafting process there was inevitable variation in the results. And because of the skill required to operate them, simply adding more tools to the production floor does not result in a proportional increase in output of quality components since they will inevitably be operated by less and less skilled craftsmen. Shaper tools were also usually large and expensive.

To understand what was happening at this time you really have to study industrial history in the period from about 1600 (or earlier) through the end of WWII (or beyond). Europe, including both England and Germany, was based upon the crafts guild system. Most skilled craftsmen were born into the trade guild and spent 10 years or more from an early age as an assistant, then another decade or two as a journeyman, and then if they were deemed worthy became "masters" of their respective trade guild. These guilds dominated European industry and controlled its development, and they were very careful to protect thier interests, much like the Medical Doctors of today. They were extremely resistant to both technology and processes which might diminish the importance of the skilled craftsmen, and they had tremendous political power. Most guilds supported the other guilds, and had an unwritten but very well established agreement not to encroche into one anothers specialties. The end result for the machining industry was that while tools did improve over time, they were almost always simply improvements to the tools that proceeded them allowing the operator to do more and more precise work and they were almost never focused on reducing the skill required of the operator. Another issue was the education system. European guilds were generally resistant to outsiders and Universities were generally open only to the very rich, mostly nobility and not focused on such mundane tasks as industrial engineering.

So now we come to the American industrial experiance. During colonial times, very few large scale industrial tools were imported into the colonies. They were expensive, required skilled craftsmen who generally did not wish to leave their well established lives in Europe (mostly England), and it was in conflict with British policy to even allow significant industrialization of a colony since the whole idea was the colony was to trade raw materials for finished goods produced in England. After the Revolution, the British went further - banning the sale of machine tools to the USA both from British and other European sources (they'd be confiscated as contraband by British ships), and this ban was not lifted until after the Civil war.

So for the most part the USA had to build its own machine tools. Because there were relatively few skilled craftsmen from Europe, the exception being a few who'd fled European religious intolerance without their large tools, there was a strong motivation to develop machine tools that required much less skill on the part of the operator and there were no established trade guilds to oppose this. Because, compared to Europe, labor in general was scarce in the USA, there was a general motivation to reduce the labor input to production. Another factor influencing American machine tool development in the 1800's was the need to keep the size and cost of the machines relatively low by comparison to European machines. These factors led to major innovations. And US Universities were much more open to "commoners" and also open to industrial engineering. Thus the sons of craftsmen and people who had a real need for products had the oportunity to pursue solutions at Colleges and Universites.

A good example is Eli Whitney. The son of a Massachusetts farmer, he would never have had the opportunity to become an inventor in Europe. He made nails for spare cash as a teenager, a guild law violation in Britain at the time, and developed techiques to mass produce nails with a reduced labor input. He worked on his fathers farm and taught school to earn money which he saved to pursue an advanced education at Yale from which he graduated at the age of 27 in 1792. In 1794 he patented the Cotton Gin, an invention for which he was never compensated after fighting in the courts to collect on his patent for a decade. He gave up on the Cotton Gin and the South and headed back to New England in about 1805.

In New England Whitney leveraged his fame as inventor of the Cotton Gin to aquire a Federal contract for 10,000 rifles, even though he had no facilities to produce them and no past experiance in manufacturing guns. And in pursuing this project he laid the foundation for what was to become known as the "American system of manufacture", which differed tremendously from that of Europe. European rifles (and American rifles up to that time) were constructed entirely by hand as a craftsmen's item. There was no parts interchangability between any two rifles. Whitney changed that by creating a template system which allowed an unskilled laborer to make precision parts that exceeded the quality of all but the most skilled craftsmen and which were identical to those of other rifles allowing parts interchangablity. And thus was the milling machine invented.

The milling machine was just one of a host of inventions that were part of the American industrial revolution of the 1800's. The concept of making it possible for unskilled or low-skilled labor to produce high quality products was unique to the USA.

By WWII, American automated machine tools were far far in advance of those of Europe. The German's were further along than the British in terms of tools and production techniques, but still no where near as advanced as the USA. Multiple operation machine tools in the USA were much much more complex than those of Europe, often allowing a piece of metal to be placed in the machine and almost no operator action needing to be taken to produce the component. No other country had the "gang of saws", or the "centerless grinder". Sundstrand centerless grinders were transfered at British request to Napier from the Pratt&Whitney to make the unreliable SabreII reliable - these were developed by P&W specifically for the R2800(c) and the transfer delayed the R-2800(c), and thus the P-47M, P-47N, F4U-4, F7F, and F8F, by at least 4 months.

The point is American manufacturing was much more advanced than European manufacturing. While on a unit basis, the European system could produce an aircraft of comparable quality, on a mass production basis it could not. Either production quantity or quality had to be sacrificed relative to the manpower inputs involved.

Also you still havent provided any source that specifically verifies your claim !

When British pilots got into a P-51 they used to say it was a "cadilac of the sky" because of the noticable quality of the construction, and commented that the Spitfire cockpit felt crudely built by comparison.

Well, it's been over 20 years since I studied industrial economics as part of my managment science major and history minor in college. I know this to be a fact, but finding any "proof" of it that will satisfy you on the web is like looking for a needle in a corn field. It is too removed from the common interest to be easily searched for - and who wants to write a book about such a topic? But I am sure I will find something eventually and I'll post it.

Seriously, there is no disputing that when it came to mass production during the WWII time frame the USA was the absolute master both in terms of quantity and quality

Not in quality.

Yes in quality. In terms of mass production quality the USA had no peers in WWII. The production of ships alone dwarfs the total production of all other nations combine in WWII.

Lets look at single engine fighter production. Germany was able to produce what - 45000 Bf109's and 20000 FW190's in WWII? Britain produced 20000 Spitfires (1000 of which used US built merlins), 2500 Seafires, 13000 Hurricanes, 3300 Typhoons, and 400 Tempests (note: many US parts were used in British fighters). So Germany was able to produce about 65,000 and Britain about 40,000 single engine fighters over the course of about 6 years. This compares to US production of 9590 P-39's, 14587 P-40's, 15685 P-47's, 15484 P-51's, 3271 P-63's, 7596 F4F's, 12274 F6F's, and about 6500 F4U's, for a total of 85,000 single engine fighters, the great great majority of which were produced in just 3.5 years!

=S=

Lunatic

 

[KraziKanuK]

Some corrections Luni.

109 production was not 45,000 but 33,000.

In the Pacific, it was 145PN fuel, not 150PN fuel, and it arrived very late.

The RR Merlin, whether by RR or BY one of the other UK manufactures, was the preferred engine, not the Packard Merlin. The Packard was not that reliable.

 

[Schöpfel]

Here you go Lunatic, wrap yourself in this:

 

[Anonymous]

Some corrections Luni.

109 production was not 45,000 but 33,000.

You are correct, I used the 45,000 number without verifying it. However there were actually 39,000 109's built during the WWII period - 6000 were two seat trainers.

In the Pacific, it was 145PN fuel, not 150PN fuel, and it arrived very late.

In 1943/44 the intent was to divert 150 grade fuel to the PTO. Later, as I said, this plan changed. I agree the high test fuel did not arrive until very late - about July 1945 with a few minor exceptions earlier.

The fuel rating system is kinda impossible to judge. As you probably no, there is really no such thing as 150 octane fuel - 100 is the highest possible "octane" rating.

The RR Merlin, whether by RR or BY one of the other UK manufactures, was the preferred engine, not the Packard Merlin. The Packard was not that reliable.

Where do you find this. Everything that I've seen says the Packard Merlin was more reliable because it was made from superior alloys and it was built to more exact tolerances.

 

[Anonymous]

Here you go Lunatic, wrap yourself in this:

Looks a lot better than the one your wearing:

8)

 

[Nonskimmer]

Nasty.