Best Allied bomber destroyer.

stona · Sep 2, 2013

fastmongrel said:
There doesnt seem to be anything fundamentally wrong with the airframe or engines and if the RAF had wanted it it would have been developed. I dont think its too far into the realms of fantasy for it to have 1100hp 2 stage engines running on 100 octane by 43.

Maybe, if they'd pursued the project. The problem was that there were always better options. The Whirlwind was axed and reprieved two or three times, that initial order for 114 always just about survived!

The Air Ministry don't seem to have had much faith in Westlands's ability to produce the air frame, there are many complaints about the quality of the Lysanders being built down in Yeovil. They still gave the company a Spitfire order though. Needs must and all that.

Dowding had predicted "an infinity of trouble" with the Whirlwind and within a month of 263 Sqn. forming in June 1940 he got it!

Rivets in outer slat shells failed causing slat to jump of sprockets.
Failed welds in carburettor intake ducting.
Wing tip fairings cracking in less than ten hours flying time.
Tail wheel oleos collapsing, causing cracking of rear bulkhead casting.

Those are just the problems listed as the reasons for grounding the aircraft in July. There were many more.

In October/November Westland, MAP, and the Air Ministry all suggested that 263 Squadron. should be moved to 10 Group in the South West and be closer to Westland's factory at Yeovil. Serviceability was consistently low, often less than 50%. Dowding's reply to Beaverbrook at the MAP is telling.

"I purposely put 263 Squadron out of the way because I know Westlands and I know what a packet of trouble the squadron would be in for. I cannot put them anywhere in the South because I cannot carry any passengers in that part of the world."

When one reads the sagas of newly introduced aircraft during this period it makes you appreciate just how right a few were and just how difficult most were.

Cheers

Steve

swampyankee · Sep 3, 2013

Tigercats? Probably one of the few twin-engined fighters that could successfully mix it up with its single-engined contemporaries. If I recall its specs, it could climb at something like 4,500 fpm, which is not too shabby.

Rufus123 · Sep 3, 2013

swampyankee said:
Tigercats? Probably one of the few twin-engined fighters that could successfully mix it up with its single-engined contemporaries. If I recall its specs, it could climb at something like 4,500 fpm, which is not too shabby.

With 4 20mm and 4 .50 I thought it would be an amazing bomber destroyer and attack aircraft.

If you were a bunch of heavy bombers could you imagine going up against the US naval and army aircraft that was coming out at the end of the war. What the UK had was not shabby either. The Tigercat would be a heavy hitter against the bombers but could take on fighters if it had to (bombers are the primary target), the Bearcat could get to altitude fast and could engage the escorts. the Corsair and Mustang could continue stripping off the escorts, I think .50 armed planes should focus on escorts. The Spitfire could do dual purpose while the Tempest, upgunned A-26 and Mosquito Could be the pure bomber destroyers.

I think a heavy bomber force if the war went past 1945 into 1946 going up against the British and US air arms would get torn apart even with a heavy escort of German P-51's

muscogeemike · Sep 3, 2013

My vote goes to the P-61.

Rufus123 · Sep 4, 2013

muscogeemike said:
My vote goes to the P-61.

The P-61 does not have any more firepower than a Tigercat and is much slower. Perhaps the P-61 carries more ammo.

Shortround6 · Sep 4, 2013

Once you have four 20mm Hispano cannon adding four .50 cal guns doesn't really buy a whole lot. IF the US Navy was right and one 20mm gun was worth 3 .50 cal guns then you have the equivalent of 5 1/3 20mm guns. a roughly 33% increase in fire power. It is an increase but hardly a dramatic one. It's like going from six mg's to eight. Not really worth an extra engine and all the extra aircraft structure.

Rufus123 · Sep 4, 2013

Shortround6 said:
Once you have four 20mm Hispano cannon adding four .50 cal guns doesn't really buy a whole lot. IF the US Navy was right and one 20mm gun was worth 3 .50 cal guns then you have the equivalent of 5 1/3 20mm guns. a roughly 33% increase in fire power. It is an increase but hardly a dramatic one. It's like going from six mg's to eight. Not really worth an extra engine and all the extra aircraft structure.

But isn't the Tigercat getting enough performance for the jobs it is likely to do. It seems like a plane that has a lot of options. It could go .50's only for something like an Oscar or a Zero, the .50's will work on a 109 as well. It has cannon for the bigger targets like a heavy bomber. It looks like it could stay in a fight longer than some other planes from an ammo point of view.

I might also like a 33% increase if I am attacking a ship tossing up a lot of flack.

When I look at it's gun layout it looks like the span of the guns is about as wide as someones outstretched arms. It makes me think of a broom rather than a shotgun. I think if the pilot did a perfect job of aiming for .50s will be acting like a buzz saw and both sets of 20s are not far off the mark. When I see gun camera footage it looks like the steam of fire is dancing all over the place. When the aim is a couple of feet to the right or left one of the sets of 20's is hitting where you want to to be. The plane looks like it give more options.

The statement that a 20mm is worth 3 .50's sounds like a rule of thumb comment to me. We know that can only be compared so far as there also have different qualities.

vinnye · Sep 4, 2013

Having the extra 50's gives you some firepower when the 20 mm's are out of ammo.
So when you disengae and see a target of opportunity, you can engage / strafe it.
No 50's no engagement - just run for home and hope you do not get company!

Rufus123 · Sep 4, 2013

muscogeemike said:
My vote goes to the P-61.

Just a thought from someone that does not know much.

Comparison between the P-61 and Tigercat.

1. I think the P-61 will be a more stable gun platform.

2. I think the superior speed of the Tigercat allows it a better chance to slip past the fighters to get to the bombers. The faster speed allows the Tigercat to search more ground in a limited amount of them. The P-61 does not have an advantage in range.

3. Firepower, both of them have 200rpg in 20mm, the Tigercat has 300rpg in .50 and the P-61 has 560rpg in .50 so the P-61 does has a greater ammo load out of .50.

4. The P-61 having it's 50's in a turret changes some things. It has some defensive capability the Tigercat does not have. The turret allows some offensive options against the bomber as well. When the fixed guns are not aligned with the target the turret potentially has a shot. It can also fire upward for under the bomber approaches. The turret adds several options of putting fire on the bomber. I do understand that the turret did cause some buffeting problems.

I say use them both if you are trying to stop heavy bombers.

l'Omnivore Sobriquet · Sep 4, 2013

muscogeemike said:
My vote goes to the P-61.

This is cheeting. This thread up to #83 was dealing with daytime bomber destruction !

I was having the same thoughts as yours while browsing it then and again...
If it comes to night's zerstörung, then some Mosquito NFthis or NFthat should settle the issue, even if one or two meters long... or yards if you prefer PC screening applying.
On the matter I'm having that seasonned love of the Douglas B-26C option, all too often forgotten...

Shortround6 · Sep 4, 2013

vinnye said:
Having the extra 50's gives you some firepower when the 20 mm's are out of ammo.
So when you disengae and see a target of opportunity, you can engage / strafe it.
No 50's no engagement - just run for home and hope you do not get company!

An F4U-1C carried 924 rounds of ammo for it's four guns or about 23 seconds of firing time. Most engagements will be over before then.

Don't forget that each R-2800 is sucking down 4-5 gallons of fuel per minute at combat ratings.

Switching from .50 cal guns to 20mm cannons and back for different targets is comic book or computer game stuff most of the time. Some Japanese and German pilots did it in the early part of the war but then they only had 60 rounds per cannon or 6-8 seconds firing time.

And since if you have enough pilots you can get almost two Corsairs for every F7F or P-61 it doesn't look that good for the twin engine planes.

Rufus123 · Sep 4, 2013

Shortround6 said:
An F4U-1C carried 924 rounds of ammo for it's four guns or about 23 seconds of firing time. Most engagements will be over before then.

Don't forget that each R-2800 is sucking down 4-5 gallons of fuel per minute at combat ratings.

Switching from .50 cal guns to 20mm cannons and back for different targets is comic book or computer game stuff most of the time. Some Japanese and German pilots did it in the early part of the war but then they only had 60 rounds per cannon or 6-8 seconds firing time.

And since if you have enough pilots you can get almost two Corsairs for every F7F or P-61 it doesn't look that good for the twin engine planes.

That is 31 more rounds per gun. When I have seen gun camera footage of attacks on heavy bombers it looks like it takes a lot to shoot them down. I thought the Germans often took multiple passes at bombers.

Why was the nave taking deliveries of the Tigercat when they had Corsairs?

Rufus123 · Sep 4, 2013

Shortround6 said:
An F4U-1C carried 924 rounds of ammo for it's four guns or about 23 seconds of firing time. Most engagements will be over before then.

Don't forget that each R-2800 is sucking down 4-5 gallons of fuel per minute at combat ratings.

Switching from .50 cal guns to 20mm cannons and back for different targets is comic book or computer game stuff most of the time. Some Japanese and German pilots did it in the early part of the war but then they only had 60 rounds per cannon or 6-8 seconds firing time.

And since if you have enough pilots you can get almost two Corsairs for every F7F or P-61 it doesn't look that good for the twin engine planes.

I know this might not be a reliable source but here it is.

"The F4U-1C was introduced to combat during 1945, most notably in the Okinawa campaign. Aviators preferred the standard armament of six .50 in (12.7 mm) machine guns since they were already more than powerful enough to destroy most Japanese aircraft, and had more ammunition and a higher rate of fire.[101] The weight of the Hispano cannon and their ammunition affected the flight performance,"

Was this too much of a load for this plane to carry and maintain performance.

Vought F4U Corsair - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It also appears that the Tigercat was slightly faster but I don't think by enough to make much difference but it is doing it carrying 8 guns 4 of them being cannon.

Shortround6 · Sep 4, 2013

A F4U with six .50s and 2400 rounds is carrying 442kg of guns ammo, not including links, ammo boxes, mounts, chargers etc. An F4U with four 200mm cannon and 934 rounds is carrying 440kg of guns ammo not including links, ammo boxes, mounts, chargers etc. unless there is something weird going on with mounts, chargers etc there shouldn't be that much of a difference.
I would also note that the last of of the F4U-4 had four 20mm cannon as did the F4U-5 and the F8F-2.
A .50 cal with 400 rounds has about 32 seconds of firing time.
Most Spitfires had about 12 seconds. The Typhoon and Tempest had about 14-15 seconds.

The Thread is about shooting down 4 engine bombers with a fair degree of protection, not Mitsubishi G4Ms

And the F7F is carrying fewer rounds for it's cannon? one or two fewer bursts?

Rufus123 · Sep 4, 2013

Shortround6 said:
A F4U with six .50s and 2400 rounds is carrying 442kg of guns ammo, not including links, ammo boxes, mounts, chargers etc. An F4U with four 200mm cannon and 934 rounds is carrying 440kg of guns ammo not including links, ammo boxes, mounts, chargers etc. unless there is something weird going on with mounts, chargers etc there shouldn't be that much of a difference.
I would also note that the last of of the F4U-4 had four 20mm cannon as did the F4U-5 and the F8F-2.
A .50 cal with 400 rounds has about 32 seconds of firing time.
Most Spitfires had about 12 seconds. The Typhoon and Tempest had about 14-15 seconds.

The Thread is about shooting down 4 engine bombers with a fair degree of protection, not Mitsubishi G4Ms

And the F7F is carrying fewer rounds for it's cannon? one or two fewer bursts?

The F7F pilot has the option of throwing 1200 rounds of .50 along long with those cannon rounds.

It looks like to me the comparison is this.

Rate of Climb F4U-4 Rate of climb: 3,870ft/min (19.7 m/s)
Rate of Climb F7F-4N Tigercat 4,530 ft/min (23 m/s) <--- This is the two seat night fighter version.

Range Corsair 897 mi (602 nmi (1,115 km)
Range Tigercat 1,200 mi (1,000 nmi, 1,900 km)

Service Ceiling Corsair 41,500ft (12,649 m)
Service Ceiling Tigercat 40,400 ft (12,300 m)

Speed Corsair 453 mph (395 kn, 731 km/h)
Speed Tigercat 460 mph (400 knots, 740 km/h)

Weapons Corsair 4 × 20 millimetre (0.79 in) M2 cannon
Weapons Tigercat 4 × 20 mm (0.79 in) M2 cannon + 4 × 0.50 in (12.7 mm) M2 Browning machine gun

Ammo load out Corsair 924 20mm
Ammo load out Tigercat 800 20mm+ 1200 .50BMG

Gun placement. The Tigercat's right and left guns are much closer to centerline than the Corsair giving the Tigercat more concentrated fire.

While .50 might not be optimal for bringing down a heavy bomber I cannot imagine it is doing nothing. I believe the .50 will be penetrating deeper while the cannon is doing more damage. If I was in a bomber being struck with 4 20's I would still be concerned about the stream of 4 .50s passing through. The Tigercat has the option of deep penetration from its concentrated .50s while at the same time explosive effect 20mm's in a more concentrated pattern than the Corsair can deliver.

Again I don't think the .50 is as good at the 20mm for the heavy bombers but it can deliver two different kind of hits at the same time. The question would be is 1200 rounds of .50 able to make up for 124 20mm cannon.

That concentrated mass of 4 .50s has to have some affect between those 4 20mms.

Who was it that said 1 on the nose was worth 2 in the wings? I don't know how that calculation was done. Maybe in reality 1 in the nose was worth 1.8 in the wings but never mind. There were those attempts at pusher fights in order to get the firepower concentrated in the nose. With the Tigercat you have a line of 8 guns about as wide as a persons outstretched arms none far from the center line. Wing roots seem the next best thing to the nose.

silence · Sep 4, 2013

I might be tempted to go with the DH Hornet, primarily because it looks like its Hispanos don't have the issues of the M2s.

Rufus123 · Sep 4, 2013

This is curious.

The XP-67, in WW2 it was the allies that had most of the big heavy bombers. Most of the Axis bombers were not near as large as what the Allies used but it seems like the US was chasing after the more firepower the better route for bomber destruction 6 × 37mm for an allied prototype bomber destroyer in WW2.

The side with the biggest bombers was also trying to develop big bomber destroyers.

Rufus123 · Sep 4, 2013

silence said:
I might be tempted to go with the DH Hornet, primarily because it looks like its Hispanos don't have the issues of the M2s.

I thought the M2 issues got sorted. I don't think they were ever an issue on the Tigercat but perhaps there is not much flexing on a wing root. The Hornet would be a good choice I think. 8 guns just seems so devastating to me still when 4 of the are cannon and 4 are heavy MG.

Rufus123 · Sep 4, 2013

Going to different route, how helpful would turrets be in attacking a bomber formation?

I still wonder how many 20mm guns can be stuck in the nose of an A-26. Here you do have a shotgun. Nose mounted 20mm with 6 widely spaced .50s in the wings plus dorsal and ventral turrets. I don't think this would be as good as the Corsair, Tigercat, or Hornet in this job but it does have defensive fire when coming up behind a large bomber. Also with two turrets it could still be engaging bombers when the nose was not pointed at one.

Rufus123 · Sep 4, 2013

Looking around it looks like the USA was trying a lot of things to but a lot of firepower in planes to kill bombers. I didn't know Axis bombers were considered that tough.

Airacuda
Curtiss XP-71
XP-58 Chain Lightning
McDonnell XP-67

The British tried to do the same thing.

Vickers Type 432 with 6 20mm
Vickers Type 414 with 40mm gun

Some people were wanting to throw a huge amount of firepower at some bombers.

Best Allied bomber destroyer.

Major

Chief Master Sergeant

Airman 1st Class

Senior Airman

Airman 1st Class

Major General

Airman 1st Class

Senior Airman

Airman 1st Class

Airman 1st Class

Major General

Airman 1st Class

Airman 1st Class

Major General

Airman 1st Class

Senior Airman

Airman 1st Class

Airman 1st Class

Airman 1st Class

Airman 1st Class

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads