I still carry mine in my flight bag when I fly. Don't have to worry about batteries ever running dry.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I still have my USGI version as well. Carried it according to regulations on every single F15 sortie I flew. I can also say I never ONCE pulled it out and used it ever after pilot training.
Cheers,
Biff
Hi Chris - I wasn't taking it personally, just reflecting on stirring up the clueless once again. Slapping self upside the haid.Was not directed at you personally.
It's all about what the customer wanted.Interesting that the F4U initially had ZERO external stores, but ended with over 8000lbs of it in the AU-1.
Testament to a great design
I carry a small one in my flight bag and I have one on my watch which I now need a magnifying glass to read! I used to have an electronic one and IIRC the batteries died right before one of my written exams! As Chris said, don't have to worry about batteries!I still have my USGI version as well. Carried it according to regulations on every single F15 sortie I flew. I can also say I never ONCE pulled it out and used it ever after pilot training.
Cheers,
Biff
Thats proof that the system works, just imagine what would have happened on the day you didnt have it.I still have my USGI version as well. Carried it according to regulations on every single F15 sortie I flew. I can also say I never ONCE pulled it out and used it ever after pilot training.
Cheers,
Biff
I read somewhere that they loaded 10,000lb into a Mosquto's bomb bay, and it took off and flew. They never seriously considered taking it into combat in that state. At some point, either you have a fantastic escort, or you are bombing people who cannot fight back.Interesting that the F4U initially had ZERO external stores, but ended with over 8000lbs of it in the AU-1.
Testament to a great design
I have my grandfathers copy, from 1942. He was a WAG on RCAF Lancasters in 1944. It is an interesting readIf you can find a copy of Victory Through Air Power, by Alexander P. De Seversky, I recommend reading it
The final PR versions of the Mosquito carried 1,192 gallons of fuel internally and 400 gallons in external tanks.I read somewhere that they loaded 10,000lb into a Mosquto's bomb bay, and it took off and flew. They never seriously considered taking it into combat in that state. At some point, either you have a fantastic escort, or you are bombing people who cannot fight back.
The Americans were successful at long range escort because the Germans and Japanese did not develop two stage superchargers in time. At 30,000ft, an American fighter with 1000lb fuel on board, could out-run intercepting fighters.
In 1940, it was obvious that the heavily armed bombers would not need escorts. If you can find a copy of Victory Through Air Power, by Alexander P. De Seversky, I recommend reading it. It shows you where a fairly knowledgable industry insider's head was at. The Walt Disney cartoon version of it is less informative, unfortunately.
I have a copy of this book, he gives great insight for the day but some of his assertations proved to be grossly wrong as we look in hindsight.In 1940, it was obvious that the heavily armed bombers would not need escorts. If you can find a copy of Victory Through Air Power, by Alexander P. De Seversky, I recommend reading it. It shows you where a fairly knowledgable industry insider's head was at. The Walt Disney cartoon version of it is less informative, unfortunately.
P-47s were effective at ground attack late in the war, because the Luftwaffe no longer had the trained, experienced pilots to exploit their inferior performance and shoot them down.
Like the Airacuda being a "preview of an effective long-range interceptor fighter"great insight for the day but some of his assertations proved to be grossly wrong as we look in hindsight.
Yep - and he mentioned some pretty wild claims about high altitude bombing accuracy.Like the Airacuda being a "preview of an effective long-range interceptor fighter"
View attachment 652301
De Seversky echoed many (not all) senior Air Force officers as late as 1939. It was also clear to him that for engine technology of the day, that in US a turbosupercharger equipped Pursuit/Interceptor would have to be present to combat a B-17 type bomber at high altitude - resulting in P-43, then P-47.I read somewhere that they loaded 10,000lb into a Mosquto's bomb bay, and it took off and flew. They never seriously considered taking it into combat in that state. At some point, either you have a fantastic escort, or you are bombing people who cannot fight back.
The Americans were successful at long range escort because the Germans and Japanese did not develop two stage superchargers in time. At 30,000ft, an American fighter with 1000lb fuel on board, could out-run intercepting fighters.
In 1940, it was obvious that the heavily armed bombers would not need escorts. If you can find a copy of Victory Through Air Power, by Alexander P. De Seversky, I recommend reading it. It shows you where a fairly knowledgable industry insider's head was at. The Walt Disney cartoon version of it is less informative, unfortunately.
If you build a fighter aircraft with 1500lb of fuel and I engage it with my fighter with 750lb fuel, your airplane will be heavier and more explosive. You need me to miss important technical developments like any form of two stage supercharging.Who knows what would have materialized if the idiots had taken Arnold's number one priority for 1939 Kilner-Lindbergh Board was to develop 'Pursuit aircraft with 1500 mile range'. An RFP to Douglas, Lockheed, Seversky/Republic and others to Propose rather than pursue Wright Field constraints may have resulted in something like the Mustang from other than NAA.
We know that the T/E solution was deemed feasible and the S/E solution was deemed impossible.
Howard - it isn't about being missed. That is true a.) for head on closure to prevent opponent from gaining your 'six' by trying to flee or, b.) not being surprised from behind. My 1500 pound fuel (remaining) from 1600 at takeoff P-51B managed quite well versus Bf 109G (w/600#) and w 190A-5/-7/-8 (w/1000#).If you build a fighter aircraft with 1500lb of fuel and I engage it with my fighter with 750lb fuel, your airplane will be heavier and more explosive. You need me to miss important technical developments like any form of two stage supercharging.
Depends on the version of P-47. The P-47M could fight with anything at any altitude save a Me 262. It had to avoid low to medium horizontal combats, but was fast enough to extend from Spit XIV, P-51B/D, F4U-5, Fw 190D-9... and had 2200# of internal fuel.In testing of P-47s versus Fw190s, it was demonstrated that the Fw190s were superior below 15,000ft, and that the Thunderbolts were better above 20,000ft. Escorting turbocharged bombers turned out to be the Thunderbolt's mission. A long range ground attack war
In engineering, there is no free lunch. The Germans failed to develop high altitude engines, and the Mustang had an incredible, slippery airframe.
The Bf109G and Fw190A lacked two stage supercharging. The Mustangs and Thunderbolts had huge speed advantages at bomber escort altitudes. If the Germans had built high altitude engines, they would have had lighter, more rugged aircraft, they would have been faster, and they would had the advantage of ground control.Howard - it isn't about being missed. That is true a.) for head on closure to prevent opponent from gaining your 'six' by trying to flee or, b.) not being surprised from behind. My 1500 pound fuel (remaining) from 1600 at takeoff P-51B managed quite well versus Bf 109G (w/600#) and w 190A-5/-7/-8 (w/1000#).
The P-47M was late war. We need to compare it with the Fw190D, with the two-stage Jumo 213, if the Germans had had their act together.Depends on the version of P-47. The P-47M.
Some, however, were clear enough in vision to understand that 'the Bomber will Always Get Through was NOT a constant as early as 1939.
27 mostly derogatory posts since my last post
Since the end of April.
The German 'failure' matched the American 'failure' to develop 2S/2S engines sooner. As to developing lighter, more rugged aircraft? I dunno. The Germans were pretty dedicated to the Bf 109 airframe and the Fw 190 airframe. When the 109G and Fw 190A-2 was introduced, they took a back seat to no airframe.The Bf109G and Fw190A lacked two stage supercharging. The Mustangs and Thunderbolts had huge speed advantages at bomber escort altitudes. If the Germans had built high altitude engines, they would have had lighter, more rugged aircraft, they would have been faster, and they would had the advantage of ground control.
Howard - true that P-47M was 'late in war' but it also competed against the Fw 190D-9 at the same time (January 1945/December 1944) both were introduced into operations. It also competed successfully against Bf 109K and Me 262. The latter, only when the 262 pilot chose to engage rather leave with better speed.The P-47M was late war. We need to compare it with the Fw190D, with the two-stage Jumo 213, if the Germans had had their act together.