Dogfights and the High Loss rate of 'Tail end Charlie'

timmy · Oct 17, 2010

Colin1 said:
When you've added even more weight in the form of armament, armament mount, ammo drums/feeds and armour protection. Having not yet satisfactorily explained where the bulky WWII radio equipment and, in the case of the P-51, the fuselage fuel tank are going to go, I'd say we've got so much weight aft of the CoG it's going to need an interstate to get it off the ground and fly like a wounded turkey when it does.

Weight and weight distribution are factors of primary concern to single-engined, single-seater fighters. Just about everybody adopted the finger-four during WWII for good reason, it was the best method of catching someone sneaking up on your formation before he could do any damage.

There would be zero benefit to saddling this type of aircraft with a second crewman, and a host of reasons why it wasn't a good idea.

Good points^

Its probably the main reason why they never did this. Even a jockey sized man would add weight

The only aircraft you could even consider adopting this method in WW2 would probably be the P47d
Simply the size and power it already had, not to mention it carried weight well would make it the only
fighter being even close to suitable. Though stated in my original post that this would be used only for
'Tail end charlie' and not the other aircraft in the fighter formation. It still would be a great penalty to carry

Airframes · Oct 17, 2010

A single seat fighter is just that - it doesn't need another person, and therefore doesn't have a second seat. Aircraft types such as the IL2 are attack aircraft, designed to attack ground targets, and are not fighters. This type of aircraft has the rear seat for a defensive gunner, to offer at least some protection - a whole different concept to the fighter aircraft. To add a rear observer's seat to a fighter is absolutely pointless - it's not needed, it would increase all of the design requirement tolerances, and it would be about as effective as a concrete parachute.
So, the rear observer has spotted an enemy diving out of the sun, and calls a warning to the pilot. What then? The result will probably still be the same - bang bang you're dead !

timmy · Oct 17, 2010

Airframes said:
A single seat fighter is just that - it doesn't need another person, and therefore doesn't have a second seat. Aircraft types such as the IL2 are attack aircraft, designed to attack ground targets, and are not fighters. This type of aircraft has the rear seat for a defensive gunner, to offer at least some protection - a whole different concept to the fighter aircraft. To add a rear observer's seat to a fighter is absolutely pointless - it's not needed, it would increase all of the design requirement tolerances, and it would be about as effective as a concrete parachute.
So, the rear observer has spotted an enemy diving out of the sun, and calls a warning to the pilot. What then? The result will probably still be the same - bang bang you're dead !

True, that aircraft would probably have the same result. But the early warning might save the rest of the squadron ??? Well it probably comes down to how the enemy jumps the fighter squadron. I guess if they have dived down from the clouds or the sun the result never changes. If they haven't come in from such a steep dive then the rear observer might have some benefits

Perhaps if they had aircraft like the P82 early in the war, maybe they could of flown a couple of these with squadrons of P51s and used them in the way specified.I know its a crazy hypothetical question but might be worth discussing...

Colin1 · Oct 17, 2010

timmy said:
The only aircraft you could even consider adopting this method in WW2 would probably be the P-47D
Simply the size and power it already had, not to mention it carried weight well would make it the only
fighter being even close to suitable

Make the heaviest single-engined, single-seater fighter in WWII even heavier?

The P-47, any mark, did not carry weight well, it just carried it. It couldn't climb to save its life and you'd need to choose your fight with the Luftwaffe front-liners at low to medium altitudes.

Power is one thing, power to weight is quite another; compare and contrast two R-2800-powered birds, the P-47 and the F8F for fightability vs another single-engined, single-seater opponent.

Colin1 · Oct 17, 2010

timmy said:
But the early warning might save the rest of the squadron?

Perhaps if they had aircraft like the P-82 early in the war, maybe they could of flown a couple of these with squadrons of P-51s and used them in the way specified.I know its a crazy hypothetical question but might be worth discussing...

That's not tail-end charlie, that's sacrificial lamb
and it would almost certainly be the guy(s) who never returned from a mission - can't see it being popular...

Not really, the finger-four worked otherwise history would have recorded an alternative technique. The problem with the rearward facing guy is that you still can't see under and behind the aircraft, so the pilot has to kick his rudder periodically to give his oppo a chance to see what's down there. On top of your weight penalty, you're now introducing a speed penalty, which is what the rudder-kicking will translate to and that in turn will translate, ironically, to a formation that is concentrating on not leaving the guy at the back behind and leaving themselves open to the very bounce he was supposed to negate.

It all sounds a bit pre-war RAF

Dogfights and the High Loss rate of 'Tail end Charlie'

More options

timmy

Airman

Airframes

Benevolens Magister

timmy

Airman

Colin1

Senior Master Sergeant

Colin1

Senior Master Sergeant

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads