FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Actually I think what is meant is "Maneuvering Speed" AKA as "Va." Maneuvering speed for a P-51 is shown to be around 265 MPH.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Zipper730 said:
For some reason, I thought the Tempest was operational earlier actually. I am interested about the low-speed handling characteristics of the Tempest against the P-51 regardless (merely out of curiosity).
Technically, I was thinking of allied forces. Regardless, it seemed the Axis powers largely had developed escort capabilities as time went on.
Actually I think what is meant is "Maneuvering Speed" AKA as "Va." Maneuvering speed for a P-51 is shown to be around 265 MPH.What is "low speed" the landing speed of a Tempest was 110 MPH, a low speed handling competition between those two is like a parking competition for F1 cars. The German part of the Axis scaled back manufacture of machines that needed daylight escort from 1943, Attacks on UK were done at night.
Maneuvering speed.What is "low speed" the landing speed of a Tempest was 110 MPH
Correct: If I recall, a rough approximation is the stall-speed x square-root of rated g-load, with the exact calculation being: V = sqrt (2L/((CL)(ρ)(A)Actually I think what is meant is "Maneuvering Speed" AKA as "Va." Maneuvering speed for a P-51 is shown to be around 265 MPH.
From what I recall, the Tempest doesn't seem to have (based on the pilot's manual) any correction at the lower end of the speed range. Not sure about the Spitfire.Speeds are mph I.A.S.
The British seem to miss stuff in manuals that we usually put in. The F4U had a V-N diagramThere is no V-g diagram, so there is no maneuvering speed listed.
From what I recall, the Tempest doesn't seem to have (based on the pilot's manual) any correction at the lower end of the speed range. Not sure about the Spitfire.
The British seem to miss stuff in manuals that we usually put in. The F4U had a V-N diagram
You mean position correction for airspeed? The stall speed, gear down was 75 mph and 85 mph gear up. That's I.A.S. But, with the caveat to not turn below 135 - 140 mph, I'd say the stall is not gentle. I can't think of another aircraft that has bad handling 50 mph above stall
What happens if you design a point interceptor and I design a long range escort fighter with both of us using equivalent technology? My aeroplane will have larger fuel tanks, and I will set up the aerodynamics to provide efficient high speed cruise. Your aeroplane will be smaller and lighter, and it will be optimised for manoeuvrability, acceleration, climb and top speed. My aeroplane will be faster in a dive. You do need heavier armament to knock down my bombers, which increases your weight a bit.How about we not re-run the war except in the "what if: category, which is rather notorious for having no correct answers to any questions.?
Who designed a long range escort in WW2? Certainly not the USA or British. They adapted designs for the role that were originally designed for something else.What happens if you design a point interceptor and I design a long range escort fighter with both of us using equivalent technology? My aeroplane will have larger fuel tanks, and I will set up the aerodynamics to provide efficient high speed cruise. Your aeroplane will be smaller and lighter, and it will be optimised for manoeuvrability, acceleration, climb and top speed. My aeroplane will be faster in a dive. You do need heavier armament to knock down my bombers, which increases your weight a bit.
I am facing the classic military problem of fighting at the end of extended communications. I cannot just say I am going to design an escort fighter that will be superior to whatever it is you have, unless I have some technological and/or logistical advantage, like high octane fuel, turbochargers, and an effective training program for my new pilots.
"The Germans had a terrible time using twin-engined, two-seater fighters as daylight bomber escorts. Would the British have failed as badly had they sent the Mosquito fighter variant as a daylight bomber escort?
Williamson Murray, Luftwaffe strength 28 June 1940 1,107 Bf109 to 357 Bf110, or about 3 to 1 Bf19 to Bf110From known losses and kills such as analysed by danish author Christer Bergström, Luftskrid over kanalen (2006)
* Spitfire: 550 confirmable kills 329 losses -exchange ratio is 1.7: 1
* Hurricane: 750 confirmable kills 603 losses -exchange ratio 1.2: 1
* Bf 109 780 confirmable kills 534 losses – exchange ratio 1.5: 1
* Bf 110 340 confirmable kills 196 losses – exchange ratio 1.7: 1
The Bf-110 suffered from a negative exchange ratio only when forced to close escort orders in late august and early september 1940.
danish author
Christer Bergström,
Sorry I just copy pasted that text from the linked prevous post by someone else on this forum...Swedish actually; I know we look and sound much the same, but still
Interesting contrast between pre-P-51B and Tempest Range figures. The N-73 through P-51A (internal fuel only at 180gal US) had a straight line range w/no reserve at 10K of about 1050mi. If all the RAF data is in Imperial Gallons, the Tempest II and V straight line ranges of 740 and 790 respectively for 194gal US and 192gal US is 30% less than Allison engined Mustangs with 7% more fuel. The P-51B with no fuselage tank had very slightly less straight line range at 1025mi with 4 gallons more than P-51AThis is pretty interesting
View attachment 665818
I transcribed all the numbers and, also rewrote a few terms (permanent fuel was obviously internal fuel).
View attachment 665819
The figures for the Tempest are quite interesting though it obviously wouldn't measure up to the P-51B/C
The transcription for the Spitfire IX (cut away fuselage as modified in the U.K.), second and third lines should read 96+62?This is pretty interesting
View attachment 665818
I transcribed all the numbers and, also rewrote a few terms (permanent fuel was obviously internal fuel).
View attachment 665819
Those three missions with minimum bombing altitude over 29,000 must have been interesting.There were numerous bombing missions which flew under 26,000 feet. Of 372 bombing missions of the 303rd Bomb Group, the lowest bombing altitude:
Code:11,000 to 13,900 feet: 11 ( 3.0%) 14,000 to 16,900 feet: 18 ( 4.8%) 17,000 to 19,900 feet: 31 ( 8.3%) 20,000 to 22,900 feet: 77 (20.7%) 23,000 to 25,900 feet: 178 (47.8%) 26,000 to 28,900 feet: 54 (14.5%) 29,000 and over: 3 ( 0.8%)
Williamson Murray, Luftwaffe strength 28 June 1940 1,107 Bf109 to 357 Bf110, or about 3 to 1 Bf19 to Bf110
Wood and Dempster, 10 August 1940, Bf109 1,101 establishment, 934 strength, 805 serviceable, Bf110 301 / 289 / 224, or over 3 to 1 Bf109 to Bf110.
So Bergstrom reports the Bf110 force scored about 1 confirmed kill for each of its initial strength, the Bf109 about 0.8. Then when you factor in multi engine multi crew aircraft generate fewer sorties per aircraft than single engine single seaters, and the close escort tactics, Bergstrom is reporting the Bf110 was a much better fighter than the Bf109, longer ranged, scoring as high as maybe 50% more confirmed kills per sortie over the course of the Battle of Britain, if allowed to optimise its tactics.
The Battle of Britain Then and Now says Fighter Command had 1,026 total losses for the Battle, with 798 due to enemy action and 40 more unknown, of the enemy action losses 672 are attributed to enemy fighters or enemy aircraft. Bergstrom has 1,120 confirmed kills by Luftwaffe fighters, which means up to another 450 non RAF Fighter Command aircraft are confirmed shot down, which would be mostly from Bomber Command and Coastal Command. Bergstrom says over the Battle of Britain the Luftwaffe fighters shot down 3 Fighter Command to 2 other RAF command aircraft. Bomber Command lost 382 aircraft in the period to all causes, 103 by day, 279 by night, 187 of the losses came down on British territory. Using Boiten's Nachtjagd War Diaries and the Bomber Command Losses series 15 day and 23 night losses are due to Luftwaffe fighters, 14 more losses are to unknown causes.
That still leaves hundreds from Coastal Command to make up the numbers, total all causes losses on operations for all of 1940 were 310, few are logged as lost to fighters, see Coastal Command Losses by Ross McNeill.
The old Luftwaffe kill claims list I have for the Battle of Britain has ZG26 and ZG76 but is missing ZG2, the ZG units logging 231 claims, some of which were disallowed, the JG units 1,894, again including some that were disallowed. Bergstrom more than halves the Bf109 claims, but must have several hundred more claims by Bf110 that the old list I have is missing.
Williamson Murray, losses to end September 1940, Bf109 398 enemy, 79 ops, 41 non ops, Bf110 214 enemy, 9 ops, 12 non ops
The Battle of Britain Then and Now listing, 10 July to 31 October has the total all causes losses on operations as Spitfire 353, Hurricane 569, Bf109 600, Bf110 248.
Bergstrom reports, July to October, Spitfire 394, Hurricane 603, Bf109 534, Bf110 196
Luftwaffe Quartermaster reports as translated by the RAF, July to October Bf109 600, Bf110 235, plus 18 night fighters.
Williamson Murray, Luftwaffe, table IX says in the July to September period the Luftwaffe single engined fighter units lost 47% of their original strength, the twin engined units 66%. For May and June 1940 Murray reports the Luftwaffe single engined fighter units lost 19% of their original strength, the twin engined units 30%, for May to September, single engined fighter units lost 57% of their original strength, the twin engined units 97%,
Bergstrom's total of confirmed kills by Luftwaffe fighters, at 1,120, is hundreds more than can be confirmed by RAF records and post war investigations, his fighter losses for the RAF higher and Luftwaffe lower than the air force records.
The main reported Bf110 failing was poor acceleration, which would be a big problem on close escort sorties.