I still carry mine in my flight bag when I fly. Don't have to worry about batteries ever running dry.
F4U in Europe
- Thread starter VA5124
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I still carry mine in my flight bag when I fly. Don't have to worry about batteries ever running dry.
Clayton Magnet
Staff Sergeant
- 912
- Feb 16, 2013
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
Testament to a great design
drgondog
Major
Hi Chris - I wasn't taking it personally, just reflecting on stirring up the clueless once again. Slapping self upside the haid.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
It's all about what the customer wanted.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
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!
Thats proof that the system works, just imagine what would have happened on the day you didnt have it.
Howard Gibson
Senior Airman
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.
Clayton Magnet
Staff Sergeant
- 912
- Feb 16, 2013
I have my grandfathers copy, from 1942. He was a WAG on RCAF Lancasters in 1944. It is an interesting read
The final PR versions of the Mosquito carried 1,192 gallons of fuel internally and 400 gallons in external tanks.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
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.
Conslaw
Senior Airman
But by the time they were used in ground attack, P-47s really weren't inferior down low. By mid 1944, the P-47 had water injection, paddle-bladed prop, and 150-octane gas (at least in Europe). These changes made the P-47 much more competitive down low.
Clayton Magnet
Staff Sergeant
- 912
- Feb 16, 2013
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Yep - and he mentioned some pretty wild claims about high altitude bombing accuracy.
drgondog
Major
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.
Some, however, were clear enough in vision to understand that 'the Bomber will Always Get Through was NOT a constant as early as 1939. Thankfully, the dissidents included General Henry Arnold who carefully monitored what was happening to 'bombers' in Spain and correctly deduced that development in single engine Interceptor technology would outpace bomber technolgy. The 'dilemma' was how? The fault in perhaps earlier development of a long range escort was the short sided insistance on single stage engine coupled to turboSC concept at Wright Field.
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 Gibson
Senior Airman
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.
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.
drgondog
Major
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#).
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.
True - no free lunch. More wing area/greater climb and better tun but more drag, Less weight/less internal storage for fuel but better climb and acceleration, and so forth.
Howard Gibson
Senior Airman
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.
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.
33k in the air
Staff Sergeant
- 1,356
- Jan 31, 2021
Strictly speaking, the sentiment is correct — the bomber did always get through. The problem was that the losses taken in getting through were unsustainable if escort fighters were not available.
Yeah, but comments made out of context, simple refusal to acknowledge the facts as they stand, incorrect assessments of data, inaccurate synopses of situations... The list of points you get pulled up on gets larger with every thread you enter.
Wha? The war ended years ago!
drgondog
Major
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.
It's interesting to speculate on perhaps stealing the Merlin 61 plans in late 1940 and racing nimbly to early 1942 at same time (hard to imagine). But 'just suppose'
Not modifying a 109 airframe to be 'lighter' and more rugged? It was already draggy to extreme compared to Mustang, would require lifting NAA (or Martin Baker prototype) cooling system to couple with the Merlin/1650-3 engine and already increase weight by several hundred pounds just to replace the DB 605. The DB 605 already produced more HP than the 1650-3 up to FTH for the DB 605. The Jumo 213 was a very good engine. In fact, had the Allies not been successful at bombing Fw and Jumo plants in spring and summer 1944, the D-9 would have been available much earlier - perhaps the same for the Ta 152.
What project do you have in mind that were better candidates for 'lighter, more rugged' aircraft other than the ones just mentioned?
And the LW tracking and centralized control system was also pretty capable, and frequently able to vector large concentrations of fighters to poorly protected bomber Task Forces. December 29, April 11, April 24, April 29, May 12, etc, etc come to mind.
The
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.
Last edited:
