Best twin engine dogfighter

[FLYBOYJ]

And why not? What possible incentive would the Allies have in being wrong?
Given that their pilots lives depended on this information, they would do their best to make them as good as possible in fact.
In fact if they understated German performance figures they would very quickly get feedback from their own pilots that this was not true, probably very forceful feedback (along the lines of "you told us that X does Y mph, but I was at Z mph and it caught up with me, you stupid prat").

Quite possibly in the very early days they would have had issues with correct maintenance and procedures, therefore not getting the best out of any captured plane.
But by later in the war they would have gotten that worked out pretty well.

For example, Rolls Royce had stripped down Jumo 211s totally and tested them on their own testbeds to measure their performance.

Plus by '42 the British had worked out the Luftwaffe's order of battle pretty well. RV Jones famously stated that he could give a month's warning of any new Luftwaffe bombing campaign and then proved it, hence their terrible losses in Operation Steinbock (he also predicted to the day when V1s would be launched at Britain).
The Germans Knew about the Mustang long before it appeared and had a very good idea of its performance, ditto the Allies with the introduction of the 190D.

So I just can't see how they could be dramatically out. This also applies to the Germans, by later in the war both sides had a pretty good idea of what they were up against.

If the aircraft was captured intact, one would get very accurate information on that aircraft's performance provided it can be maintained and operated correctly without the benefit of technical data. It the aircraft crashed, landed gear up or was salvaged, you always run the risk of never getting that aircraft to the state it was in operationally. Once an aircraft lands hard or winds up on its belly it is never the same....

 

[bobbysocks]

a lot of the stuff tested was new or practically new. like the Do335 i made reference to....and the one that crashed and killed the pilot due to a fire in the rear engine. i had come right from the factory. there were enough brand new ac laying around that they didnt need to piece togther shot up ac or wrecks. that happened early in the war but not afterwards.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

a lot of the stuff tested was new or practically new. like the Do335 i made reference to....and the one that crashed and killed the pilot due to a fire in the rear engine. i had come right from the factory. there were enough brand new ac laying around that they didnt need to piece togther shot up ac or wrecks. that happened early in the war but not afterwards.

Not at the beginning or even during the middle of the war. Many of the captured aircraft evaluated by both sides seen some type of trama, usually gear up landings which tend to put stresses on parts of the airframe that could actually throw the assemtry off.

As far as this incident straight from the factory - not surprising considering the quality of the production work force at the end of the war.

 

[altsym]

a lot of the stuff tested was new or practically new.

Only the G-6/U2 that landed by mistake in Britain was in relative good condition, everything else tested had serious problems that needed to be addressed, including the British tested G-6/U2 (which btw had the two MG151/20 gunpods, being a U2 it never had the GM-1) that was torn apart and put back together.

I respect Eric Brown's opinions, at the same time I disagree with some of his conclusions.

 

[Juha]

Only the G-6/U2 that landed by mistake in Britain was in relative good condition, everything else tested had serious problems that needed to be addressed, including the British tested G-6/U2 (which btw had the two MG151/20 gunpods, being a U2 it never had the GM-1) that was torn apart and put back together.

I respect Eric Brown's opinions, at the same time I disagree with some of his conclusions.

Very few 109G-6 if any had GM-1 anyway. But I agree that IIRC Brown in his analyze published in various publications forgot to emphase that the plane had the gun gondolas and in the first article in which I saw Brown's assesment there was an info box which gave the armament of normal 109G-6 but the speed of 109G-6/R6 ie the "gunship" version.

Juha

 

[Milosh]

As far as this incident straight from the factory - not surprising considering the quality of the production work force at the end of the war.

Do335s had a problem with overheating of the rear engine.

 

[nuuumannn]

I respect Eric Brown's opinions, at the same time I disagree with some of his conclusions.

It always makes me cringe when I see this kind of thing written, for example, here's a bloke who served as a test pilot and having flown in combat from aircraft carriers and shot down enemy aircraft, who flew almost every captured enemy aircraft post war and who is in the Guinness Book of Records for flying more types of aeroplane than any other individual, yet his opinion is somewhat biased and tainted by his Britishness.

Altsym, don't take this personally, but what qualifications or experience do you have to quantify your disagreement with him? I'm not saying we should naturally accept everything he states, as he has made some about faces in his printed recollections, but I find it hard to accept that so many here should write him off as biased because they don't agree with them. What makes you qualified enough to do so compared with his experience?

 

[pinsog]

It always makes me cringe when I see this kind of thing written, for example, here's a bloke who served as a test pilot and having flown in combat from aircraft carriers and shot down enemy aircraft, who flew almost every captured enemy aircraft post war and who is in the Guinness Book of Records for flying more types of aeroplane than any other individual, yet his opinion is somewhat biased and tainted by his Britishness.

Altsym, don't take this personally, but what qualifications or experience do you have to quantify your disagreement with him? I'm not saying we should naturally accept everything he states, as he has made some about faces in his printed recollections, but I find it hard to accept that so many here should write him off as biased because they don't agree with them. What makes you qualified enough to do so compared with his experience?[/QUOTE

When Mr Brown rated the Fairy Swordfish as a better torpedo plane than the Grumman Avenger, it tends to make some of us question his judgement even if we have 0 experience flying airplanes.

 

[altsym]

Altsym, don't take this personally, but what qualifications or experience do you have to quantify your disagreement with him? I'm not saying we should naturally accept everything he states, as he has made some about faces in his printed recollections, but I find it hard to accept that so many here should write him off as biased because they don't agree with them. What makes you qualified enough to do so compared with his experience?

I never take anything the wrong way, friend. pinsog made a good example.. Stringbag superior to the Avenger? Come on now. As far as my qualifications, hmmm, well....

Let me put it this way, Einstein knew ALOT about outer space, but had he ever been there?

 

[OldSkeptic]

When Mr Brown rated the Fairy Swordfish as a better torpedo plane than the Grumman Avenger, it tends to make some of us question his judgement even if we have 0 experience flying airplanes.

Must admit I have never come across that, but taking iit as a fact then you have to look at his rational for that.

Remember he was a Naval test pilot and what he would be evaluating on the suitability for the Royal Navy in its own operations. And there would be a multiplicity of factors that would affect his overall evaluation.
Like takeoff in bad weather, landing in bad weather, abilities on small escort carriers, being able to handle operating in bad weather, etc, etc, etc.
In that case you could see why the Swordfish would be better for (say) British small carrier operations in the Atlantic rather than the Avenger, despite the latter's higher speed and so on.

Context is everything in this sort of thing, so you have to look at the factors considered in the evaluation.

 

[Aozora]

When Mr Brown rated the Fairy Swordfish as a better torpedo plane than the Grumman Avenger, it tends to make some of us question his judgement even if we have 0 experience flying airplanes.

Here's what Brown wrote about the Avenger:

Drawing particular attention to:

and his conclusions

As OldSkeptic has said, some context is needed before dissing the comments of someone who has far more experience flying aircraft than all of us combined could hope to have.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Do335s had a problem with overheating of the rear engine.

so does any other pusher/ tractor configuration, right up to the cessna 337

 

[nuuumannn]

Context is everything in this sort of thing, so you have to look at the factors considered in the evaluation.

Altsym, not having a dig and glad you're not taking it personally, but Pinsog, please show me the quote and in what context it is meant? What were his exact words? OldSkeptic has a very vaild point, and in this instance...

Like takeoff in bad weather, landing in bad weather, abilities on small escort carriers, being able to handle operating in bad weather, etc, etc, etc. In that case you could see why the Swordfish would be better for (say) British small carrier operations in the Atlantic rather than the Avenger, despite the latter's higher speed and so on.

Brown was right.

Einstein knew ALOT about outer space, but had he ever been there?

Yes, you do have a valid point, but you're missing mine. If you disagreed with Einstein I'd still ask on what grounds do you disagree with him? Mine was more intended to demonstrate that Brown has a lot of experience in this sort of thing and even if he says something that we might find objectionable, he's got a lot more experience with which to back it up than we do to discount it. So, regardless of what you might know, surely it is still worth examining Brown's opinion, even if you don't agree with it, simply because of the context in which he bases it; that of far greater experience than we could ever have access to, rather than dismissing it because of some accusation with no grounds whatsoever, like a bias to British equipment.

If I said Brown was Scottish and not English, would it make a difference to how Americans rate him?

 

[nuuumannn]

And I've just read Aozora's post and I say thank you, useful supplier of pertinent information! I used to have a copy of Wings of the Navy, but along with the rest of my book collection at my parent's house, it got given away when they moved overseas.

From what I've read, Brown's assessment of the Avenger is quite fair and balanced without any bias or preference for another type over it. Obviously it refers to the FAA use of the Avenger, but then that is Brown's frame of reference; his experience with it.

 

[altsym]

nuuumannn,

It wouldn't matter to me where Eric Brown was from. BUT in my personal opinion, he does have a small bias towards British aircraft, which is totally understandable.AS far as testing however (in regards to German aircraft) I doubt very much that he (and others.. like Mark Hanna) took the 109 to its limits like in wartime scenarios (for safety reasons). Therefore, they can give a general idea about performance, but not the complete picture, as say a German or Finnish pilot would have in WWII. Those 'seasoned' 109 pilots would now every creek, groan, vibration, and sound from there mounts.

I believe that Mr.Hanna said that the P-51 would have 'no chance' against the 109 in a lower altitude, lower speed dogfight. But we know that not nessesarily the case. Just like the P-51 wouldn't always shoot down a 109 at high speed and high altitude. in a dogfight

 

[CobberKane]

I suspect expert test pilots are as prone to hyperbole as anyone else. Hanna's statement that the P51 wouldn't stand a chance low and slow against a 109 might be an exaggeration, but the Mustang would be at a serious disadvantage. Brown said that the P 38 was useless in the ETO, which seems more than a little harsh, but then again Brown was writing circa '43, when the Lightning was struggling against the LW while the RAF was enjoying parity (at least) thanks to the Spit IX. On the other hand, accusing another commentator of bias without presenting anymore justification than that persons opinions being at variance with your own leaves you open to the charge of ganesaying (not directed at anyone in particular). Anybody looking for bias masquerading as reasoned argument, go read David Irving.

 

[nuuumannn]

he does have a small bias towards British aircraft, which is totally understandable

Altsym, can you provide examples of this?

I doubt very much that he (and others.. like Mark Hanna) took the 109 to its limits like in wartime scenarios (for safety reasons).

And your point is? Isn't that what test pilots do? Even if that were not the case, what bearing does it have on Brown's experiences? Also, Mark Hanna was not a test pilot, why would he do that in a civilian owned warbird? Somewhere I have a copy of Flypast or something with his recollections of flying Bf 109G Black 6, which I watched flying on many occasions at Duxford, I'll have to see if I can find that particular quote.

Here's a snippet from Wings of the Luftwaffe on the Bf 109G;

"At its rather disapponting low level cruising speed of 240 mph (386 km/h) the Gustav was certainly delightful to fly, but the situation changed as speed increased; in a dive at 400 mph (644 km/h) the conrols felt as if they had seized! The highest speed that I dived to below 10,000 ft (3 048 m) was 440 mph (708 km/h) and the solidity of control was such that this was the limit in my book. However, things were very different at high altitude, and providing the Gustav was kept where it was meant to be (i.e. above 25,000 ft/7 620m) it performed efficiently both in dog fighting and as an attacker of bomber formations. To give some idea of its performance, I measured 384 mph (618 km/h) in level flight at 23,000 ft (7 010 m), which conformed pretty well with the officially claimed maximum speed of 386 mph (621 km/h) at 22,640 ft (6 900 m)."

 

[Shortround6]

What test pilots do changes with the "mission requirements".
When flying a single example of a captured enemy plane the goal would more likely be to to fly the plane to 8/10s or 9/10s of the planes limits and preserve the plane for as long as possible. A few 10/10s speed runs and climbs being thrown in but they are more of an engine test than a an airframe test like trying to pull a 7 or 8 G turn. You do have instruments to tell you if the engine is misbehaving, temp and pressure.

The US Navy had a pre-war requirement (biplane days) that each aircraft type HAD to be tested in a terminal Velocity dive. A 90 degree dive as fast as the airplane would go, not that hard with a high drag biplane but risky enough that it was often contracted out to free lance test pilots. With the coming of monoplanes they had to give it up. Too many other things were entering into the test besides structural strength Like having enough room to pull out.

Once a test pilot establishes some data points some of the rest of the performance can be calculated from how similar planes behave. Then a few further flights may be done to see if the flight envelope matches the calculations. There is little need for the test pilot to fly the aircraft 10/10s in every conceivable situation or corner of the flight envelope if flying a captured aircraft.

Even when testing aircraft for one's own company or air force the extreme limits are approached slowly and in incremental steps. Too many test pilots were lost before WW II (and during) by jumping into planes and flying high speed runs or performing acrobatics on early flights.

 

[pinsog]

Must admit I have never come across that, but taking iit as a fact then you have to look at his rational for that.

Remember he was a Naval test pilot and what he would be evaluating on the suitability for the Royal Navy in its own operations. And there would be a multiplicity of factors that would affect his overall evaluation.
Like takeoff in bad weather, landing in bad weather, abilities on small escort carriers, being able to handle operating in bad weather, etc, etc, etc.
In that case you could see why the Swordfish would be better for (say) British small carrier operations in the Atlantic rather than the Avenger, despite the latter's higher speed and so on.

Context is everything in this sort of thing, so you have to look at the factors considered in the evaluation.

Look at "Duels in the Sky" by Captain Brown and you will read on pages 214-217 about torpedo bombers. He rates the Swordfish as the best torpedo bomber of WW2. His ranking is as follows:

1. Swordfish
2. Grumman Avenger
3. Nakajima Kate
4. Nakajima Jill

This single ranking is so outrageous that it tends to put a twist on everything else he evaluated, ie: "If he can rank a Swordfish over an Avenger, then is a Spitfire really better than a 109? Or a 190 better then a Spitfire? Or does he smoke crack on a regular basis"

 

[Shortround6]

It may be no more crack than some of the people who post on this forum

Which plane sank the greatest number of ships with torpedoes (of course this brings the torpedo into the equation)
Which plane sank the most tonnage " " " "
Which plane had the highest hit rate, number of torpedoes dropped vs hits?
Which plane sank the most for the least losses?

For comparison:

which fighter plane shot down the most enemy planes?

Which fighter shot down the most enemy fighters? (if different)

Which fighter had the best kill to loss ratio?

The planes that best answer the last three questions are not really the "best" fighter/s of WW II (Brewster Buffalo on the last one)
But often crop as as such.

It depends on your criteria and the Swordfish did have 'results' all out of proportion to it's actual flight performance, in part due to having a torpedo that worked and in part due to a lot of it's opposition.

Does Brown explain his criteria?