Eric Brown's "Duels in the Sky"

[barney]

Hello Barney
According to Dennis' Royal Aircraft Establishment at war (2008 ), Brown was the Chief Naval Test Pilot, RAE Farnborough, 1944-49 and CO Aerodynamics Flight 1947-49. The High Speed Flight Section began to investigate the problems experienced at near sonic flight speeds early in 1943. The aim was to establish the max Mach No which could be achieved by a particular aeroplane. The Mustang used was Allison engine P-51, the book doesn't give more exact type, it only notes that dive started from 28,000 ft only due to a/c ceiling limitations. Also on P-47 and -38, no subtype is given, only notes in both cases that Dive recovery flap investigation and additionally on P-47 Very high stick forces.
In his memoirs Wings on my sleeve, 2006 edition, Brown only writes that at the end of 43 (before Christmas anyway) he was transferred to Boscombe Down. 5-9 Jan 44, he visited Italy to testfly Italian a/c, when back he began his 4-engine training on Short S29, on 17 Jan he reported at Farnborough because the previous naval test pilot there had just been killed on the rocket Seafire. So he joined the famous Aerodynamics Flight on 17 Jan 44. And yes, he writes that the transonic flight testing took on a new emphasis after a visit to RAE early in 44 by Lt. Gen. Doolittle, who had just taken over command of the 8th USAAF which had suffered worrying escort fighter losses when the fighters on high cover dived down to intercept LW fighters and lost control. There was no time to set up a normal instrumented research program, but what was wanted was a hand-on series of tests on the P-38H, P-47C and P-51B. The tests up to their tactical and critical Mach numbers began in late Jan 44 and continued through to early March 44. So according to Brown these tests were not part of the famous scientific tests by RAE I mentioned at the beginning of this message.

HTH
Juha

Hello Juha

Great information on Brown – exactly what I was wanting. That little blurb in Wikipedia caught my eye, and while it might be misstated or overstated, it is, I now know, based on events that actually occurred.

Thanks again
Barney

Now I need to find some books on Doolittle.

 

[tomo pauk]

Hi, vanir,

Your assessment of Mustang's qualities and achievements is well written.

It was stating the Mustang as a contemporary of Blenheim, Defiant Bf-110 that made me wonder - perhaps that's my bad, since English is not mine 1st language?

Further, Blenheim was the fast bomber entering the service, so I'd really want to see RAF requiring of it to perform escort for it's bombers (=fighting enemy planes in process). Defiant was conceived as a bomber destroyer, IIRC? Saying that Blenheim Defiant are to assume very long-range fighter escort duties is non realistic IMO.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Hi, vanir,

Your assessment of Mustang's qualities and achievements is well written.

It was stating the Mustang as a contemporary of Blenheim, Defiant Bf-110 that made me wonder - perhaps that's my bad, since English is not mine 1st language?

Further, Blenheim was the fast bomber entering the service, so I'd really want to see RAF requiring of it to perform escort for it's bombers (=fighting enemy planes in process). Defiant was conceived as a bomber destroyer, IIRC? Saying that Blenheim Defiant are to assume very long-range fighter escort duties is non realistic IMO.

In the US I think this pig carried the same thought process...

 

[tomo pauk]

Airacuda was to be a bomber destroyer - USAAC Defiant?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Bell YFM-1 Airacuda - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[tomo pauk]

Yep, Wiki and Vee's for victory agree here (from Wiki):

In an effort to break into the aviation business, Bell Aircraft created a unique fighter concept touted to be "a mobile anti-aircraft platform"[3] as well as a "convoy fighter."[4] Created to intercept enemy bombers at distances beyond the range of single-seat fighter interceptors, the YFM-1 (Y, service test; F, fighter; M, multiplace) was an innovative design incorporating many features never before seen in a military aircraft, as well as several never seen again. Utilizing a streamlined, "futuristic" design, the Bell Airacuda appeared to be "unlike any other fighters up to that time."[5]

So - kill bombers, avoid fighters.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Yep. But in the end that thing couldn't get out of it's own way!

 

[buffnut453]

 

[Shortround6]

To be fair the USAAC had an advantage the British did not, Unless we were attacked by Canada there was no chance of of any bomber reaching the US with a fighter escort for the foreseeable future. Please remember that the USAAC had not only contracted for the B-15 < Boeing XB-15 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia > but it first flew in Oct 1937. There were several other design studies and the B-19 under construction. The USAAC probably had a better idea of what kind of aircraft (and what it's capabilities were) that could reach the US from anywhere but Canada or Mexico than any other nation did. It could specify a 'bomber destroyer' based on that knowledge.

 

[vanir]

Don't forget the Amiot 143. It's roles assigned by Arm d'la Air (I dunno how to spell that) were: light bomber, escort fighter, tactical reconnaissance and army support. The reason I heard that it was designed like a tool shed with wings bolted to it and a fighter cockpit shoved on the roof, was to fill each of those primary roles using the same airframe, to cut defence expenditure with "revolutionary multipurpose designs" which aren't very good at any individual role.

This was the thinking behind escort fighters. First you had the Soviets pretty much invent the fast medium bomber, its success in Spain was being faster than the interceptors sent after it. France, England and Germany took to this idea and it formed interwar thinking on effective bomber forces. Since the bombers weren't under threat from fighters (it was assumed), escort fighters became a light attack and utilitarian role. They are pathfinders, damage surveyors, tactical assistance, and in the event of enemy interceptors they drop their loads and cover the bomber stream with pintle mounted guns generally.

Look at the Bf-110 in this context and it suddenly becomes a really powerful aircraft conceptually and makes a lot more sense as a bomber escort. Does those jobs superbly. The problem was interceptors got better.

 

[barney]

It just all came together as if that was the original intention, but it just goes forever on the sniff of an oily rag yet carries tons of fuel.

That is a great line.

I came upon some information regarding the ranges the USAAF was obtaining at various periods of the war from various escort aircraft in the ETO. These figures are said to include allowances for fuel consumed in takeoff delays, forming up over England, bad weather, fighters weaving to fly the same speed as bombers, the usual reserve and fuel used in combat. This is from a government document entitled, "Carl A. Spaatz and the Air War in Europe".

June 1943 Spitfire P-47 – 230 miles
July 1943 P-47 with 75 gal belly tank – 340 miles
August 1943 P-47 with 108 gal belly tank – 375 miles
November 1943 P-38 with 2 75 gal wing tanks – 520 miles
January 1944 P-51 – 475 miles
February 1944 P-38 with 2 108 gal wing tanks – 585 miles
February 1944 P-47 with 150 gal belly tank – 425 miles
February 1944 P-47 with 2 108 gal wing tanks – 475 miles
March 1944 P-51 with 2 75 gal wing tanks – 650 miles
March 1944 P-51 with 2 108 gal wing tanks – 850 miles

Unfortunately, the chart I took this from only provides the above information on aircraft type. Still, I think it is interesting to see how the range increases over time and what aircraft were used to achieve that range.

For reference, the distance from London to Berlin is 578 miles.

 

[Francis marliere]

Vanir, the name of French air force is "armée de l'air".

Best,

Francis

 

[vanir]

thank you Francis, I shall use that from now on.
I was tired and drinking, I should've looked it up I know.