AFAIK the Barracuda couldn't carry the atomic bomb...
I'm happy to concede that point...but it still doesn't make the B-29 a dive bomber!
Best dive-bomber of the pacific
- Thread starter tbfighterpilot
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I'm happy to concede that point...but it still doesn't make the B-29 a dive bomber!
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Yep, the same way the Barracuda was no way the best Dive Bomber in the Pacific - land or carrier based....
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Now for the next topic the T6/Harvard vs Miles Master
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
There is a big difference in bombing an anchored Tirpitz with little or no CAP and Japanese CVs at flank speed with a CAP. The liquid cooled engine of the Barracuda and Seafire and the Firefly is much more vulnerable to battle damage which is why the USN wanted nothing to do with them.
machine shop tom
Senior Airman
- 503
- Apr 13, 2007
Only because the Germans didn't insist that it do duty as a dive bomber (a la the He177).
tom
Tirpitz wasn't anchored when first attacked, but was in a very strongly defended base. Over Midway, the IJN CAP didn't engage the USN SBDs.
As for liquid cooling, yes, that's why the P-51 was such a failure.
davebender
1st Lieutenant
The Soviet Il-2 and German Ju-87D were powered by liquid cooled engines. Both aircraft developed a reputation for survivability against ground fire.
Catch22
Major
I think it has less to do with actual capability and more to do with perceived capability at the time. Nobody can argue that inline engines were more rugged than radial, but inline engines still probably could have done the job alright with US carrier planes. The US Navy stuck with radials because a) they knew them, they knew they were tough, and they worked and b) because they didn't have to carry extra supplies. We can look back now and decide what could have/what would have worked, but they don't have the benefit of that, and they still got the job done with radials.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
The P-51 was not designed as a dedicated ground attack or dive bomber aircraft as a matter of fact there were times during its career where it suffered high losses due to being operated in a ground support role. Col Mike Alba 338th FS told me that he did not strafing in the P-51 because of the coolant system being shot up and actually prefered the P-38 in some situations. I was also told by Col Alba that the majority of losses in his squadron were due to aircraft being shot down while attacking ground targets.
Alba Michael Capt
North American P-51 Mustang during the Korean War
"The F-51 was also not an ideal aircraft to use in this role – the liquid cooled Merlin engines were vulnerable to ground fire, but the USAAF had already scrapped its P-47 Thunderbolts, which would have been more suited to the role (the US Navy used the Corsair for the same duties over Korea, where its radial engine made it rather more survivable). The F-51 performed a valuable role in Korea, where the rocket armed aircraft were able to inflict significant damage on North Korean ground forces, despite suffering heavy losses themselves, mostly from ground fire."
At the start of the Korean War, the Mustang once again proved its usefulness. With the availability of F-51Ds in service and in storage, a substantial number were shipped via aircraft carriers to the combat zone for use initially by both the Republic of Korea Air Force (ROKAF) and USAF. Rather than employing them as interceptors or "pure" fighters, the F-51 was given the task of ground attack, fitted with rockets and bombs. After the initial invasion from North Korea, USAF units were forced to fly from bases in Japan, and F-51Ds could hit targets in Korea that short-ranged F-80 jet fighters could not. A major concern over the vulnerability of the cooling system was realized in heavy losses due to ground fire. Mustangs continued flying with USAF and ROKAF fighter-bomber units on close support and interdiction missions in Korea until they were largely replaced by Republic F-84 and Grumman Panther jet fighter-bombers in 1953. No. 77 Squadron Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) operated Australian-built Mustangs as part of British Commonwealth Forces Korea, replacing them with Gloster Meteor F8s in 1951. No. 2 Squadron South African Air Force (SAAF) operated US-built Mustangs as part of the US 18th Fighter Bomber Wing, suffering heavy losses by 1953, when it converted to the F-86 Sabre.
P-51 Mustang - American Flyers
Bottom line - if you're going to attack a ground target with a recip aircraft, its engine better be round!
http://www.korean-war.com/AirWar/AircraftType-LossList.html
Last edited:
pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
Liquid vs Air cooled
would the aircooled engine not provide a much larger aining point and might not make the difference in vuneralbility a wash
would the aircooled engine not provide a much larger aining point and might not make the difference in vuneralbility a wash
Table 8 of American Combat Planes by Ray Wagner.
This data includes the ETO and MTO
The Loss/Sortie rates are:
P-47 0.7%
P-51 1.2%
P-38 1.4%
P-40 0.8%
P-39 0.4%
Spitfire 0.7%
A-36 0.8%
The A36 was used as a dedicated ground attack aircraft, and its sortie loss rate was insignificantly higher than the P47, while the liquid cooled P39 had the lowest loss rate. The example of the IL2 has already been given, and it was an outstandingly sturdy ground attack aircraft. The P51 had higher sortie loss rate than the P-47, but the fact that the P51 was making very deep penetration missions over enemy territory undoubtedly led to its' higher sortie loss rate, as it spent much more time per sortie exposed to enemy air defenses. The P51 had a much higher kill loss ratio than the P47, and actually destroyed about 3 times as many Luftwaffe aircraft, on the ground, where it met intense flak from prepared defences, to say nothing about aerial combat.
A comparison of the P51/P47/F6F suggests that a purpose designed Merlin/Allison powered USN naval fighter would have been lighter, had longer range, and better performance, than the F6F, leading to a better sortie kill/loss ratio.
This data includes the ETO and MTO
The Loss/Sortie rates are:
P-47 0.7%
P-51 1.2%
P-38 1.4%
P-40 0.8%
P-39 0.4%
Spitfire 0.7%
A-36 0.8%
The A36 was used as a dedicated ground attack aircraft, and its sortie loss rate was insignificantly higher than the P47, while the liquid cooled P39 had the lowest loss rate. The example of the IL2 has already been given, and it was an outstandingly sturdy ground attack aircraft. The P51 had higher sortie loss rate than the P-47, but the fact that the P51 was making very deep penetration missions over enemy territory undoubtedly led to its' higher sortie loss rate, as it spent much more time per sortie exposed to enemy air defenses. The P51 had a much higher kill loss ratio than the P47, and actually destroyed about 3 times as many Luftwaffe aircraft, on the ground, where it met intense flak from prepared defences, to say nothing about aerial combat.
A comparison of the P51/P47/F6F suggests that a purpose designed Merlin/Allison powered USN naval fighter would have been lighter, had longer range, and better performance, than the F6F, leading to a better sortie kill/loss ratio.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Agree with the numbers but your last comment is speculative. You would have to look at the losses and compare them based on a ground support mission to make the real comparison. You would also have to look at the construction of the aircraft itself. The Il2 was armored excellent - the P-51 carried no armor protection around some of its vital parts. Comparing those two scenarios would certainly support your point but putting the additional armor around a liquid cooled engine would come at what cost to performance?
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
The radial engine could take damage and remain functional where a liquid-cooled engine would overheat and seize...an good example would be the P-47: there's many cases where a large portion of the engine was shot away and the Jug still made it home...
buffnut453
Captain
But the loss/sortie rates provided by RCAFSon suggest that the P-47 didn't suffer significantly fewer losses per sortie than its in-line contemporaries. So are we talking about the "survivability" of the radial and the "fragility" of the in-line being more urban myth than operational reality? And yes, I'm asking a question not making a statement. Perhaps we need a separate thread on this one (assuming it hasn't been done to death many times over already...which I suspect it has!).
davebender
1st Lieutenant
Give the P-51 an annular radiator plus machinegun resistant armor around the pilot and you would have a much tougher aircraft. Those same changes would lower aircraft combat radius.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Raise the gross weight, affect maneuverability, raise the stall speed, etc., etc., etc....
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
The IJN CAP did engage the SBDs at Midway but their ability to interfere was lessened somewhat by the fact that they were at low altitude dealing with the VTs and had to climb to try to reach the VBs before they went into their dives. They could not disrupt the attack until the VBs were already in it but did try to defend while the VBs were diving, a difficult propositon and of course they attacked while the VBs were egressing.
One only needs a little common sense and a cutaway drawing of a radial engined fighter and a liquid cooled engined fighter to determine that there are many more areas on the liquid cooled fighter which are vulnerable to even rifle caliber hits. It is foolish to argue otherwise. An engine seizing up because it overheats is a serious problem anytime but especially over water. Aside from battle damage, coolant leaks were a constant problem and a cause for Spitfires and Hurricanes to become U/S as was pointed out by Shores in "Bloody Shambles.
The USN was correct in only being interested in air cooled engines for it's airplanes.
One only needs a little common sense and a cutaway drawing of a radial engined fighter and a liquid cooled engined fighter to determine that there are many more areas on the liquid cooled fighter which are vulnerable to even rifle caliber hits. It is foolish to argue otherwise. An engine seizing up because it overheats is a serious problem anytime but especially over water. Aside from battle damage, coolant leaks were a constant problem and a cause for Spitfires and Hurricanes to become U/S as was pointed out by Shores in "Bloody Shambles.
The USN was correct in only being interested in air cooled engines for it's airplanes.
I can only point to the sortie loss rate stats that I posted earlier.
One must also remember that combat losses occur from a variety of causes, and engine coolant loss is only one possible cause. If the design team can take advantage of the smaller frontal area, better power to weight ratio and lower specific fuel consumption of an in-line liquid cooled engine, they should be able to create a higher performing and more survivable aircraft. However, it is also the kill/loss ratio that becomes paramount since a higher performing aircraft with longer range will be engaging the enemy more often, potentially leading to a higher sortie loss rate, but with more kills overall and a better kill/loss ratio.
Last edited:
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Would have, should have could have, a lot of loose speculation there... Amazing how in line engines despite some of their advantages, disappeared after the war with some rare exceptions (Shackleton).
I have worked on radials and have limited experience with liquid cooled inlines and I can say first hand the radial, if properly maintained and operated is twice as reliable as the inline, speculate and theorize all you want, I'd bet dollars to donuts that 9 out of 10 mechanics would agree with me in a heartbeat.
Last edited:
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
The source quoted, The Battle of Midway, to begin with is outdated. "The Shattered Sword" debunks a lot of myths about Midway. One of those myths is that the IJN carrier decks were packed with AC ready to take off. That is not true. Page 362 of "The First Team" by John Lundstrom states that "it appears that only about one third of the Enterprise SBDs were intercepted by the Japanese CAP." The battle records on both sides of this stage of the Battle of Midway are somewhat sketchy but regardless of whether the Zekes hit the VBs before or after they went into their dives the pilots of the SBDs were aware that they were in great danger from the CAP, unlike the bombing of the Tirpitz.
As far as playing the statistics game, P47s flew 423435 sorties in the ETO and had 3077 losses which comes out to be a loss every 138 sorties.
P51s flew 213873 sorties and had 2520 losses for a loss every 85 sorties.
That strongly suggests that the radial engined P47 was more survivable than the P51 with the liquid cooled engine but it does not prove it because there are too many variables.
At the 1944 Fighter Conference, the pilots including of course some from the UK were asked to name the power plant which inspired the most confidence. 81% of the attendees responded.
79% chose the R2800.
7% chose the Merlin.
I will still go with common sense as to the air cooled radial being more reliable just as the WW2 pilots did.
As far as playing the statistics game, P47s flew 423435 sorties in the ETO and had 3077 losses which comes out to be a loss every 138 sorties.
P51s flew 213873 sorties and had 2520 losses for a loss every 85 sorties.
That strongly suggests that the radial engined P47 was more survivable than the P51 with the liquid cooled engine but it does not prove it because there are too many variables.
At the 1944 Fighter Conference, the pilots including of course some from the UK were asked to name the power plant which inspired the most confidence. 81% of the attendees responded.
79% chose the R2800.
7% chose the Merlin.
I will still go with common sense as to the air cooled radial being more reliable just as the WW2 pilots did.
