best combination of manuverabilty and speed in an allied...

[lesofprimus]

I did not know the Ta152H was an Allied a/c.

Doh!!!

 

[Hop]

British testing of planes during WWII was not that very reliable to say the least. The testings they carried out with the scarce Bf 109s they managed to capture during the war substantiate this claim:

(a) first some testings with a Bf 109 F-4, and

(b) later on the tests with a Bf 109 G-6/R6 of JG 300 fitted with underwing gondolas for bomber hunting affairs.

There were of course others used in tests, including a 109E3, a clean G2, etc.

But how does the fact that the RAF had a limited number of captured 109s to test mean their tests were not reliable?

All tests full of mistakes and speculations.

Of captured aircraft? Of course. Captured aircraft don't come with manuals, or mechanics, or the right fuel, and the pilots tend to be fairly uncooperative.

But that affects all countries. The US, for example, claimed after initial tests that the Corsair rolled as fast, or faster, than the Fw 190. The British tests showed much higher roll rate for the 190.

Why did they only convert two squadrons with such a magnificent Mk. VIII?

They didn't. Over 1500 Spitfire VIIIs were made, they served with large numbers of squadrons, including some USAAF ones.

orrect, the Mk. XIV was faster than the Mk. VIII, but how many of this particular -faster- model were ever made?

957, iirc.

 

[Parmigiano]

Spit Mx XIV for me

 

[Jabberwocky]

British testing of planes during WWII was not that very reliable to say the least. The testings they carried out with the scarce Bf 109s they managed to capture during the war substantiate this claim:

(a) first some testings with a Bf 109 F-4, and

(b) later on the tests with a Bf 109 G-6/R6 of JG 300 fitted with underwing gondolas for bomber hunting affairs.

The British captured and tested over 20 different Bf 109s, and also tested several other Bf 109s captured by French and American forces during the war. Most of the Allied testing lines up reasonably well in its conclusions over the war period.

I wouldn't doubt the RAF's testing of its own equipment. It was done in order to best understand the aircraft it was operating, not so you could dispute it on the internet.

All tests full of mistakes and speculations.

I'm sure they were. German and Italian tests of British equipment would be similarly flawed. Its part of not having perfect knowledge about your enemy and his standards and operating procedures. However, both sides generally got the fundamentals right when testing enemy equipment. Engineering and mechanical principles don't really change that much.

Why did they only convert two squadrons with such a magnificent Mk. VIII?

Mostly because the MTO/PTO was a secondary theatre to the RAF after 1944 and there was a slow conversion over to the Basta modification. I said 'a couple' because I didn't have an absoulte reference on numbers. When I checked it seems like 244, 322 and 324 Wings, at a minimum, converted thier squadrons to Basta modifications in late 1944/early 1945. So that gives about 12 Mk VIII squadrons in the MTO on +25lbs.

Correct, the Mk. XIV was faster than the Mk. VIII, but how many of this particular -faster- model were ever made?

There were about 275 mk XIVs built post war, so approximately 700 were built before VJ day.

Wartime service there were 10 squadrons fully equipped with F Mk. XIV or FR Mk. XIV, with the first missions in May 1944. So that's 10 squadrons x 20 aircraft each = 200 airframes, without counting losses or accidents. Plus there were the 2 squadrons who converted in May 1945 and 2 squadrons sent to India in June 1945, and 2 squadrons who operated the type in conjunction with other planes for low-level tactical recon.

 

[KraziKanuK]

There was more Mk XIVs than there ever was 1.98ata K-4s which only appeared in the last month or two of WW2.

 

[Glider]

I think you will find that 1,658 Spit VIII;s were built. It was stronger than the Spit IX, had a longer range and was standard issue in the Far East.

As an aside why does everyone thnk that the British were bad at testing aircraft.
We had more reason than most to test planes properly, had the gumption to set up the worlds first test pilot school in 1942 and set up standard testing criteria to ensure a level playing field.
There were a number of 109's tested from the E onwards so I don't know where scarce came from.

I will rephrase the first line of the second para.
As an aside Udet, why do you think that the British were bad at testing aircraft

 

[Lunatic]

#1: F8F Bearcat
#2: Spitfire Mk.21 (I think that's the right mark)

=S=

Lunatic

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

British testing of planes during WWII was not that very reliable to say the least. The testings they carried out with the scarce Bf 109s they managed to capture during the war substantiate this claim:

(a) first some testings with a Bf 109 F-4, and

(b) later on the tests with a Bf 109 G-6/R6 of JG 300 fitted with underwing gondolas for bomber hunting affairs.

All tests full of mistakes and speculations.

Why did they only convert two squadrons with such a magnificent Mk. VIII?

Correct, the Mk. XIV was faster than the Mk. VIII, but how many of this particular -faster- model were ever made?

And I guarantee you German testing of allied equipment was just as flawed. It is because they did not know the equipment like the Germans do. The Germans did not know Allied equipment as well as the Allies did.

People don't, Glider, Udet does. He has this unhealthy dislike of the British military system during World War II. Even more to the point he dislikes the Spitfire, he cannot believe that something so good could have come from the Allied forces. After all, we are talking about a person who believes 90% of the war stories are Allied propaganda - hell, maybe he thinks Germany won the war and we've got Iraqs propaganda minister working for us.

"The Allies have not entered Berlin!"

And these arguments of his are getting very very very old.

#1: F8F Bearcat
#2: Spitfire Mk.21 (I think that's the right mark)

I will agree with you on that and say F8F Bearcat and Spit Mk. 21. When I said the Spitfire at first I was not thinking of the later generation of aircraft the allies produced. Ill go with the Bearcat and the Spitfire Mk. 21 as second. I think overall throught the whole war the Spitfire represented the Allies in this catagory the best.

 

[mosquitoman]

I'd go with a Tempest at any altitude but especially down low, if it counted, the Fury

 

[wmaxt]

I don't buy the F8F, it was certainly a good aircraft but it was far to limited. It was never used during the war and more importantly, it was a point defense aircraft only.

I'll stick with the Spitfire/P-38 combo.

wmaxt

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

And that I will buy also. That was a good point.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Spit/ P-38 for me!

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

That is what I think I am going back to.

 

[Lunatic]

I don't buy the F8F, it was certainly a good aircraft but it was far to limited. It was never used during the war and more importantly, it was a point defense aircraft only.

I'll stick with the Spitfire/P-38 combo.

wmaxt

Range of the F8F was comprable to that of the Spitfire. Like the Spitfire, the F8F was an interceptor not a patrol/escort plane.

I agree it never saw combat, but it was fully deployed during the war and like the P-51H and F7F suffered from lack of imperative rather than lack of availability. The US just had no imperative to rush these newer types into combat like the British, Germans, and Japanese did near the end of the war.

 

[Parmigiano]

It is because they did not know the equipment like the Germans do. The Germans did not know Allied equipment as well as the Allies did.

I strongly support this point, but I remember that when I tried to propose this concept (talking about the Zero tested by US) I got kicked in the ass!

 

[Parmigiano]

It is because they did not know the equipment like the Germans do. The Germans did not know Allied equipment as well as the Allies did.

I strongly support this point, but I remember that when I tried to propose this concept (talking about the Zero tested by US) I got kicked in the ass!

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Maybe because it was proven even by Japanese pilots. The Zero was a good plane but she was not all she was made out to be.

 

[Parmigiano]

Hmmm.

to say
'A US (or respectively German or UK) test pilot probably can not squeeze the same performances out of a foreign plane (say respectively a Zero, Mustang or Bf109) that a similarly skilled but more trained-on-the-type pilot can achieve'

has nothing to do with the absolute quality of the plane (Zero, P51 or Bf109)

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

No the quality of the plane was very good, but in combat it was outclassed. Its armament was outlcassed, its armour was outclassed and in the end its speed was outclassed.

 

[Udet]

I am going to have me some action here, finally. Things were getting quite cozy in here.

First off, I proceded to discard Mr. Plan_D´s comments off hand for they are of no value or use.

Secondly, mr. Der Adler and his hilarious opinions. What makes you think only you can find others funny eh?

Whatever the result of German testing of allied craft might have been is meaningless. Why? Very simple: such testings have not been presented as any sort of alleged testimony of the superiority of the German hardware -the way the Brits have done it with their own-.



Mr. Glider:

I do know how many Mk. VIIIs were made. I was referring to that particular model Mr. Jabberwocky pointed in his comment: a +25 lbs boost, the "Basta" modification of the Merlin engine.

He first failed to mention what was the strenght of a RAF squadron. But then he said a 20 aircraft squadron.

If only 2 squadrons were fitted with such variant, its contribution was insignificant.

But I will make the update, following his freshest comment: if some 12 squadrons were fitted with the model its contribution is still above marginal, when by the time, the P-51s and P-47s were roaming the skies of Europe by the thousands.

Glider: the fundamental British testings used by most of the present day allied revisionists come from the ones carried out with a Bf 109 G-6/R6 fitted with underwing cannons. It was a Wilde Sau fighter who landed intact in a British airfield.

Go see the performance graphs of a noted Mike Williams and you will find what I mean.


Mr. Krazy Kaniuk:

Quote:
There was more Mk XIVs than there ever was 1.98ata K-4s which only appeared in the last month or two of WW2.

Correct. And?

Do you think the 1.8 ata K-4s would have had that much trouble dogfighting with any of the Mk XIVs?


So Mr. Jabber, they tested "over 20 different 109s". Questions:

(1) Where are the results of such testings to be found?
(2) Do you have copies of such testings that you can share?
(3) Have you seen the sheets?

Quote:

"However, both sides generally got the fundamentals right when testing enemy equipment. Engineering and mechanical principles don't really change that much."

With the battle results of RAF vs Luftwaffe -before the full assembly of the 8th and 15th- I do not think the Brits quite got them.

Post-war production? There is no relevance in that. I am interested on how those machines fared against the Luftwaffe.

The vaunted and glorified Spitfire Mk XIV which was produced in very modest numbers to say to the least.