Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I Believe it was Me that questioned the Sabre engine and not Tomo.I think you know very well it all depends on what Mk of Dora it is. Even the most basic armament is still almost twice the weight of anything used by the allies. And if you want to try and reduce the discussion to knit picking so i will give you some stats as your assessment/opinion of the Tempests Napier Sabre engine is a little off to say the least.....
Design was initiated in 1935 based on an earlier study for a compression ignition diesel. British Air Ministry Initial Acceptance test were completed on 17 January 1938 rated at 1350 hp. This figure rose to 2050 hp by March. By June 1940 it had passed its Air Ministry 100-h type test on its first attempt at 2200 hp and 3700 rpm, making it the world ´s first 2000 hp production engine.
Tempest Mk. I Napier Sabre la 2090hp/3700rpm/ Four-barrel SU carburator. Two-sided blower impeller. (1941)
Tempest Mk. lI Napier Sabre llb 2240hp/4000/4250rpm Hobson RAE single-point injection. Single-sided blower impeller. (1943)
Tempest Mk V Napier Sabre lV 2420hp/3750/4250rpm Hobson RAE single-point injection. Single-sided blower impeller. (1943)
Tempest Mk. VI Napier Sabre V 2600hp/3850/2500rpm Hobson RAE single-point injection. Single-sided blower impeller. (1944)
Im not trying to insult your knowledge or intelligence, im simply not convinced the Dora was the great aircraft everyone claims it to be.
Check out French (Free French Air Force) pilot Pierre Clostermann's combat record. He bagged plenty of D-9s flying the Tempest V.
Have a good day sir.
...
Maybe that's not such a bad thing as im sure my claims on that subject are likely to make me even less popular than my posts here.
...
im sure my claims on that subject are likely to make me even less popular than my posts here.
Now that i do agree with. The only problem with published books (even from respected authors) is i find they can be at best a little unreliable when it comes to hard facts/truth. And a lot of events/battles i have recently learnt about have been deleted from history altogether. Or shall we say, glossed over for some reason. Many ww2 documentaries are similar in the fact that they can be hugely misleading and sometimes plain wrong. And war is such a difficult thing to document accurately simply because of the nature of events being so confusing and contradictory. Not to mention the amount of time that has gone by. So i really dont try to claim anything to be fact unless i have first hand experience or undeniable proof. If not i will always concede it to be my opinion only. But i will refer back to the documents i have obtained.Starting a new thread when using the Mozilla Firefox is a pain on the current forum's software. I'll start the thread about the myths and disinformations using the MS Explorer, so people can join in.
Thing is that, whether on this forum or the other forums, when one makes a statement that challenges something, it is a good thing to back up the statement with good data, from as reliable source as possible. Preferably a facsimile of the original document, that is often regardea as a 'primary source'. Good books are regarded as 'secondary source'; there is plenty of bad books around.
What I say on this forum - that is 'tertiary source', or 'opinion', even 'gossip', unless I can back it up with good data.
So we have the Sabre IV and V listed as being run or 'available'? in certain years but another source saying they weren't used in production aircraft during the war years.
Genius...The RAF thought it stank so badly they stopped going over to France to avoid the smell for a while, after studying its various odours they eventually managed to develop perfumes to match it.
It's sometimes nice when things work out that way...Simple question - simple answer, No.
I'm not sure if that's true as the RAF had Mustangs as we did, the Spitfire VII, VIII, and IX had improved climb-That said, the advantage stopped at the German border when all RAF fighters capable of escort ran out of range.
Just to be clear, that's 6 fighter groups in the 8th Air Force, and 2 fighter groups in the 9th? How many aircraft were in a typical fighter squadron and group, and bomber squadron and group?Simple math of Fighter Group conversions and subsequent combat operations from December 1, 1943 through June 5. 1944 (window for 'destruction of LW' per Combined Bomber Offensive and POINTBLANK) saw the P-51B/C target escort capability grow from one to six 8th AF and two 9th AF FG - each depending on mechanical issues putting 30 to 50 'effectives per group - to escort 30 to 35 8th AF Bomb groups.
What book, if I might ask?My book added better clarity and corrected errors.
Why did they need large formations? Wouldn't a whole bunch of finger-fours, have been easier to assemble?Summary - the LW wasn't particularly skillful at organizing large formations to attack the bombers but got better in the fall of 1944.
I guess they weren't going to let orders get in the way of good hunting...Even though the Goering orders were to attack only the bombers, the German fighter leaders in the first five months of 1944 were more aggressive in engaging the P-51s when they spotted them than in later periods
I personally like comparisons...Tempest: In horizontal flight both were about equal. The D-9 was better in climbing and turning, but the Tempest was faster in a dive.
Mustang: In normal combat maneuvers they were both about equal especially when compared to the A-8; however the D-9 had a little advantage. In a dive the Mustang was slightly faster.
Spitfire: The D-9 was better in horizontal flight, dive and climb but in turns the Spitfire was considerably better.
Thunderbolt: In horizontal flight, climbing and turning, the D-9 was better. In a dive we were badly outclassed. (Never try to out-dive a Thunderbolt, they can dive like a bullet.)
As for the Tempest, it was much faster than the Dora and any Tempest pilot would agree with that. I have even seen accounts of Typhoon pilots chasing down Doras.
And as im sure you aware the Tiffy had the same massive Napier Sabre H-24-cylinder, liquid-cooled, sleeve valve, piston aero engine that after having its gremlins ironed out was capable of 2500hp +.
You need to give a period for those losses to engine trouble or they are irrelevant.
If No. 247 Squadron lost 25 aircraft to engine trouble in three months it would be a serious problem.
If the failures occurred between January 1943 and August 1945 (when it operated the Typhoon for 31 months) it would be considered reliable in terms of WW2 aero engines.