Ah, but after you drop the torpedo you are in the only torpedo bomber that can out turn a Zero.
GOOD ONE! That is DEFINATELY looking at the cup half-full!!! You should be in sales....
Dewoitone 520 question
- Thread starter Jerry W. Loper
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
GOOD ONE! That is DEFINATELY looking at the cup half-full!!! You should be in sales....
Partly the torpedo question was connected to airframes, Avenger was tied to Mark 13 (not 21 don't know where I got that, getting old, I think) because the British 18" torpedoes were too long for its bomb bay, one drawback of carrying weapons internally. 1945 was only some 1/6 of the war. As long as many of the ships didn't have Air Warning radars, Swordfish's ability to use cloud cover and deep dive approach was a plus against targets with good AA protection. Swordfish was an archaic plane, but that wasn't only cons it produced also some pluses and those could be utilized far more often than mere 0,001% of missions, for ex. in night operations.
Juha
Last edited:
You have just been drafted by the US Navy. You are going to fly a torpedo bomber against the Japanese Navy from June 1942 until the end of the war or until you are dead. These will consist of all the historical missions actually undertaken by the US Navy. You have a choice of either the Swordfish or the Avenger. Which one would you trust your life to?
Last edited:
We are often sympathetic to the French Airforce and its designs, the ones that never were ready in time to confront the German counter attack. However its clear the French really fumbled this extremely badly.
The country was politically unstable and quite possibly at the verge of a communist revolution, this is nasty stuff given the atrocities in Spain, the Soviet Union and Hungary. Remember, the Spannish civil war began over Priests and Nuns being murdered since the standard Marxist-Leninist ideology at the time regarded the Church as half their problem.
What I am saying is the country was divided and this reflected on their industrial policy.
The country was developing and incredible diversity of airframe types dispersed in small scale design and production and design over several firms in what seemed like a totally incoherant policy. As a result the only good fighter was the MS 460 while the radial Blochs were quite slow. The DW 520 was barely ready and had many problems including handling issues Brown mentions. (Admitedly the RAE Boscombe Down types were incredibly fussy on Handling issues)
The HS 12Y engine only made 860hp while in the 940hp form used in the DW 520 I believe 100 octane was required.
Meanwhile the Germans were introducing the DB601A1a of 1170hp on 87 octane in the Me 109E4 which was was replacing the 1100hp DB601A.
That the French managed this inferiority is an indictment of their systems of Government. They had no treaty of versailes restricting their weapons development, they had no one occupying parts of their country (The French occupied the Saar region of Germany and controlled all the high grade Coal mines) and they were receiving not insignifcant Versailes reperations not scheduled to end untill 1988.
They had anexed Alsace and Lorrain and its Iron Ore plus they had large Bauxite mines and reserves. I admire French engineering but they really had no chance to realise their intellectual and design excellence.
It's of course de rigour to condemn the Nazi system for being inefficient and corrupt but they actually did extremely well up to the critical phase of 1940. The results of that year speak for themselves.
Last edited:
What kind of landing skid did it have? A blade would have improved ground handling in some ways (keeping it in a straight line), but a 'spoon' in this would have made it worse.
Do you have a reference for the tailskid? All I have been able to find is that it had a tailwheel.
GregP
Major
According to the limited information I have about the D-520, the rop speed was 340 mph and the top speed of the Me 109E was 330 mph, both at best heights.
So the D.520 was faster or at least very cloase to the Me 109E.
I don't see a decided advantage for either aircraft aside from pilot skill ... once the get into theair and past the bad ground manners of the non-locking tailwhell of the D.520, top speed wise. I am not all that familair with climb abd roll, but I think the D-520 climbed at 38200 feet per minute while the Me 109E climbed at 2820 feet per mionute ... about a wash.
To me, they seem VERY closely matched and the D.520 never got developed. When they met, the two were very close.
So the D.520 was faster or at least very cloase to the Me 109E.
I don't see a decided advantage for either aircraft aside from pilot skill ... once the get into theair and past the bad ground manners of the non-locking tailwhell of the D.520, top speed wise. I am not all that familair with climb abd roll, but I think the D-520 climbed at 38200 feet per minute while the Me 109E climbed at 2820 feet per mionute ... about a wash.
To me, they seem VERY closely matched and the D.520 never got developed. When they met, the two were very close.
In Pacific Avenger was probably better but USN wasn't the only navy with carriers and Pacivic wasn't the only see where torpedo planes were used. In Med at least in 40-42 Swordfish might well have been a good choice and definitely in North Atlantic if one had to operate from the small RN converted MAC carriers. Later when there were enough proper CVEs around, Avenger probably had the edge. But definitely more than 0,001% of missions flown by SE torpedoplanes were those for which Swordfish suited better.
Juha
Francis marliere
Airman
- 72
- Aug 9, 2004
Siegfried,
while France was politicaly instable in the 30s, the country was by no way "at the verge of a communist revolution".
I would add that France did not annex Alsace and Lorraine : these territories were conquested by Germany during the war of 1870 and went back to France in 1918.
To be back on DW.520, I would say that its main problem was how war industry was managed at this time. There were hundreds of new planes (including DW.520) available in june 1940, but most of them didn't have propellers or weapons.
Best,
Francis
The said territories were annexed by Luis XIV at around 30 years war IIRC from German princes who controlled those territories back then. As I understand Alsace/Elsass has a mixed population with a considerable number of German ethnicity.
the speed of Emil was 345/355 mph, the french tested a captured Emil-3 and in the report noted that was faster. In climb the Emil was greatly superior. (a translation in english of the french report is available on kurfuerst site)
GregP
Major
I see we have different sources for the top speed of the Me 109E (or Bf 109E if you prefer).
OK, I don't care. Either way. They are within 10 mph of each other and bullets travel about 1500 - 2000 mph, so the 10 mph speed difference is nothing when they are in range of each other.
The outcome would depend on position and / or pilot skill, which is what I was heading toward anyway. Still looks that way to me.
If I had my choice, I'd take the Me 109E due to what I consider to be better forward visibility, but the D-520 has nothing to be ashamed of and could hold its own when flown well. If both were well flown, the outcome would seem to depend om starting position or who makes a mistake.
OK, I don't care. Either way. They are within 10 mph of each other and bullets travel about 1500 - 2000 mph, so the 10 mph speed difference is nothing when they are in range of each other.
The outcome would depend on position and / or pilot skill, which is what I was heading toward anyway. Still looks that way to me.
If I had my choice, I'd take the Me 109E due to what I consider to be better forward visibility, but the D-520 has nothing to be ashamed of and could hold its own when flown well. If both were well flown, the outcome would seem to depend om starting position or who makes a mistake.
true the horizontal speed difference is not large enough for a actual advantage, but the climb advantage (and highly probable acceleratio advantage) is actually usefull.
actual losses in BoF give a clear advantage for 109 14:30 (14 109 losses for 30 520 losses, from JoeB old topic, near same proportion like Hurricane)
actual losses in BoF give a clear advantage for 109 14:30 (14 109 losses for 30 520 losses, from JoeB old topic, near same proportion like Hurricane)
Dcazz7606
Airman
One aspect of the BoF that I've never heard discussed is French combat formations. Early on the British used the vic and the Germans used the finger four. What formations did the French use. If inferior could this have contributed to the higher lossed suffered by the 520 and others?
If the German pilots were in the 520 and the French pilots were flying the 109's I suspect the kill ration would still be 14:30 in favor of the Germans. Training, training, training
My assumption is based on how well the rest of their military did during that time, not very well, and I am assuming the air force would do no better than the ground forces did. Of course, we have no way of knowing if either of us is right, but that is why we are here debating.
Shortround6
Major General
There is training and then there is training. Training to do acrobatic displays at airshows may help but it is no substitute for combat training. cross country navigation flights are better than not flying at all but don't make up for a lack of gunnery training and so on. Russians had large numbers of pre-war pilots but many of them were limited in the number of hours they flew per month or per year to save fuel and wear and tear on the aircraft. False economy? is a pilot with 120 hours spread over 3 years since flight school "better trained" than a pilot who has 120 hours in one year after flight school?
I don't know what the french standard of training was or what their pre-war annual flight times were but just because a majority of pilots were trained in the years leading up to the war, it doesn't tell us much one way or the other about how well they were trained.
I don't know what the french standard of training was or what their pre-war annual flight times were but just because a majority of pilots were trained in the years leading up to the war, it doesn't tell us much one way or the other about how well they were trained.
IIRC the training in the French AF was good for its time. The kill ratio of Hawk 75A units was a bit better than that of D.520 units, while those of MS 406 and Bloch 151 units were clearly worse, the basic French figter formation was a loose Vic, a bit like that of IJNAF in 1041 - 42, so not as good as LW's Rotte/Schwarm but better than RAF's tight Vic. So IMHO 109E was better fighter than D.520, but latter had longer range and it dived better, at least French though so.
Juha
Juha
Last edited:
Francis marliere
Airman
- 72
- Aug 9, 2004
The problems of French AF were mainly inadequate numbers (they were often outnumbered) and bad doctrine. The high command did not know how to use aviation and pilots paid the price ...
