Hartmann victories almost exclusively fighters. Why?
- Thread starter Tinku
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
He died due to breaking his own rules - attacking at low altitude with drop tanks on. Not alone but in the company of his wingmen. So one can assume that he was not a leader mature enough... yet. Great pilot, of course.
michael rauls
Tech Sergeant
- 1,679
- Jul 15, 2016
From what I have read it seems he cared a great deal for those under his command even if his maner may have been a bit harsh. Guess this alone wouldn't make one a great leader but it is certainly helpful.
In the incident in which he was killed I believe he was coming to the aid of another pilot had verry limited time to react and may not have had time or just forgotten to drop his tanks in the urgency of the situation.
Dimlee,
While I don't know for sure I was under the impression that his accident occurred early in the sortie. If you are on a pure fighter sweep, and believe yourself to have high situational awareness, it would not be difficult to think his assessment of the situation (lone enemy fighter, he has altitude and surprise, or so he thinks) would warrant a quick bounce without jettisoning the tanks. Jett them early and it will shorten the time fuel represents as opportunities to find more enemy and further catch the leading guy. So he drops in, and the adversary turns into a experienced guy who has SA on you. Your reactions would be normal, however your CG / weight are not. History is littered with aviation accidents that could be prevented, and this was one. I wouldn't say it's lack of maturity, or experience particularly after reading his New Guy Guide to fellow P38 pilots in SWP. I would call it simply an tactical error, of which he more than new better.
I have made these on more than one occasion.
Cheers,
Biff
Thanks for interesting comment, Biff.
It reminds me what some civil aviators described, how experienced pilots with years of experience, several thousand flight hours did errors which could be explained only by "reactions" or could not be explained at all logically.
I have no aviation experience (except as a passenger) but in my maritime career I witnessed similar errors and did make some of them myself, luckily without grave consequences for the vessel.
Your comment makes me think that probably (going back to the topic) Hartmann was exceptionally good in controlling those reactions and/or "sensing" when instincts can be trusted and when they should be ignored or suppressed.
Dimlee,
While flying an airliner in many ways is similar to flying a fighter, where it's different is the fighting portion. It's like doing martial arts with an aircraft, and as such your mistakes can be small and cumulative, or a single large error the results will often be the same. A loss.
As a new guy in the Eagle at Eglin AFB we did an event called a Verification. This came at the end of the process to become Mission Ready or MR. You brief a mission in front of the entire wing including leadership, and are asked numerous questions and it's generally considered a pass fail outcome. We had some questions answered inappropriately and they were on the fence about us when we were asked who Tommy McGuire was, how did he die and why? Needless to say the correct answers were passed along with a tie in to the Eagle and how we employ and, in the end we passed. Welcome to the 33rd Fighter Wing / 60th Fighter Squadron. Heady days indeed.
Cheers,
Biff
While flying an airliner in many ways is similar to flying a fighter, where it's different is the fighting portion. It's like doing martial arts with an aircraft, and as such your mistakes can be small and cumulative, or a single large error the results will often be the same. A loss.
As a new guy in the Eagle at Eglin AFB we did an event called a Verification. This came at the end of the process to become Mission Ready or MR. You brief a mission in front of the entire wing including leadership, and are asked numerous questions and it's generally considered a pass fail outcome. We had some questions answered inappropriately and they were on the fence about us when we were asked who Tommy McGuire was, how did he die and why? Needless to say the correct answers were passed along with a tie in to the Eagle and how we employ and, in the end we passed. Welcome to the 33rd Fighter Wing / 60th Fighter Squadron. Heady days indeed.
Cheers,
Biff
GregP
Major
I have often wondered about McGuire. It makes no sense that he turned in, opened fire, and stalled. Unless he was at the ragged edge of stall, firing the armament alone would NOT stall the aircraft.
The only thing that makes sense to me is he made a firing pass, and went to pull around / pull up / pull down. When he pulled too hard for the configuration and weight, it stalled, and he was either too low or else going into a secondary stall or spin that could not be recovered from given his low altitude.
So, I see it as he pulled hard, thinking he had dropped tanks or else simply failed to recognize the stall warning when it came, assuming it GAVE a warning. Perhaps he missed the stick nibbling or the stall buffet in the heat of the moment. Whatever the cause, I'm pretty sure he didn't stall from firing armament, but rather from trying to get too much pitch out of it for the weight and CG.
At least the Eagle has the power to fly out of any stall! The P-38 has lots of power, but cannot be deep-stalled and just power out of it without reducing the angle of attack.
The only thing that makes sense to me is he made a firing pass, and went to pull around / pull up / pull down. When he pulled too hard for the configuration and weight, it stalled, and he was either too low or else going into a secondary stall or spin that could not be recovered from given his low altitude.
So, I see it as he pulled hard, thinking he had dropped tanks or else simply failed to recognize the stall warning when it came, assuming it GAVE a warning. Perhaps he missed the stick nibbling or the stall buffet in the heat of the moment. Whatever the cause, I'm pretty sure he didn't stall from firing armament, but rather from trying to get too much pitch out of it for the weight and CG.
At least the Eagle has the power to fly out of any stall! The P-38 has lots of power, but cannot be deep-stalled and just power out of it without reducing the angle of attack.
Last edited:
"THOSE THAT DON'T LEARN FROM HISTORY ARE DOOMED TO REPEAT IT". Nice to see that tactics/mistakes from 70+ years ago (even WW1) can still educate modern fighter pilots to help them to be more successful in their jobs ,thus giving them a better chance to stay alive in one of the world's deadliest arenas.
BTW More Eagle stories please!
Greg,
The first 2 or 3 sorties in the Eagle I wondered how anyone could complain about the power, or more specifically the lack of it. Five rides later as I was well established in the Basic Fighter Maneuvers (BFM or dogfighting) phase I was pounding on the throttles trying to get more out of them. It doesn't take long to recalibrate. The stall on a straight winged aircraft, depending on how the wing is done, breaks and either you have some roll control post stall or you don't. On the Eagle the stall, or buffet is literally hundreds of knots wide. You can get buffet starting at 375 or so, and have it until your sink rate and proximity to the ground or another aircraft becomes prohibitive. You lose pitch authority first, followed later by ailerons, and followed lastly by rudders. I have seen 65 KIAS and climbing, and 85 KIAS sinking (depends on model / weight). If you are fighting someone his performance is most likely similar to yours and it becomes no different than WW2. Both of you get well below the peak of the Lift over Drag curve. And we have to break AOA to get out of the slower maneuvers as well.
My opine is McGuire did something out of the norm and paid for it with his life. He was talented no doubt, was a good tactician and could put it in print for the FNGs, but he made a mistake and ended his run through history (RIP).
Cheers,
Biff
Recoil would cause a loss of airspeed, and if close to the stall could be enough to induce one.
Cheers,
Biff
parsifal
Colonel
Hartmann was the best of the best, but even he could not alter the basic tenets that were dictating combat on the eastern front. By the time he became active on the eastern front (more or less), VVS was implementing most of the Novikov reforms. A big part of that was an acknowledgement by VVS that achievement of full air supremacy was something they simply were incapable of achieving for most of the war. They simply lacked the expertise, the quality of equipment to be able to completely drive the LW from the battlefield. The level of expertise within the LW fighter groups was too great for the VVS to be able to do that.
However, neither was it necessary for the VVs to achieve their primary mission of providing direct support at the point of breakthrough in the land battle. They needed to provide overwhelming escort numbers to keep the Luftwaffe fighters completely tied up whilst the VVS attack machines got stuck and do their work. They also (and generally later as the mismatch in numbers became utterly decisive) needed their fighters to make the application of Luftwaffe strikes within the land combat zone unsustainable or otherwise ineffective.
Hartmanns (an others') inability to get at the VVS bombers is to me evidence that the novikov reforms were working. This is reinforced by an advisory LW memo in about April 1943, advising their fighters, not to descend to below 5000m (or feet?) because it was at that altitude that VVS fighters held a significance performance advantage (or at least performance parity). And it was at altitudes below 5000 somethings that the VVS ground attacks were delivered.
VVS, like the Red Army, held the whip hand on the eastern front from March 1943
However, neither was it necessary for the VVs to achieve their primary mission of providing direct support at the point of breakthrough in the land battle. They needed to provide overwhelming escort numbers to keep the Luftwaffe fighters completely tied up whilst the VVS attack machines got stuck and do their work. They also (and generally later as the mismatch in numbers became utterly decisive) needed their fighters to make the application of Luftwaffe strikes within the land combat zone unsustainable or otherwise ineffective.
Hartmanns (an others') inability to get at the VVS bombers is to me evidence that the novikov reforms were working. This is reinforced by an advisory LW memo in about April 1943, advising their fighters, not to descend to below 5000m (or feet?) because it was at that altitude that VVS fighters held a significance performance advantage (or at least performance parity). And it was at altitudes below 5000 somethings that the VVS ground attacks were delivered.
VVS, like the Red Army, held the whip hand on the eastern front from March 1943
Last edited:
Thanks for the info! I read somewhere that the 75mm equipped B-25s would actually stop for a micro second when the gun was fired. True or not, don't know.
soulezoo
Senior Airman
When I was on the A-10 very early in my career, we were told that if the gatling gun fired for x amount of seconds, it could stall the aircraft. That was not entirely true. However, the recoil force of the gun was equal to the thrust of one of the engines. What was true however that if one long burst was let off, the spent cartridge gases were enough to starve the engines of oxygen and cause flameout. Things were modified to prevent this. When I was on it, the gun had a switch allowing two different firing rates, fast and slow. I understand that it's all one speed now.
Glider
Captain
Early Hawker Hunters had the same problem. Firing the guns resulted in a flame out and people got very good at restarts. Even in later Hunters it was recommended to fire two instead of four guns depending what modifications had been installed and what speed you had on.
Ascent
Senior Airman
On the Tornado when the pilot fire's the guns it automatically starts the engine igniters and the ECU limits the engine control.
- Thread starter
- #39
GregP
Major
I can't wrap my head around being in air combat down low and simultaneously being right on the ragged edge of stall.
1) They were on a fighter sweep / patrol. Not cruising at 120 knots.
2) They saw an enemy down lower and McGuire broke for the shot. Even if he were attacking a trainer, he wouldn't be at stall plus a few knots, he'd just make a firing pass and reposition.
3) He was a veteran. He KNEW how much speed firing the gun would lose. If he were at stall plus a few knots, he would have disengaged and repositioned. All the items I have read indicate the primary reason was not dropping tanks. That lends credence to the incident being early in the mission, while the tanks were mostly full.
4) If you have a plane that makes 350 mph down low, 400 mph up high, and stalls at 105 mph, you don't generally enter combat at 115 mph, even if you are a veteran and the theater's second leading ace.
It is very much more likely he stalled while pulling too hard for the configuration than stalled while shooting his guns.
1) They were on a fighter sweep / patrol. Not cruising at 120 knots.
2) They saw an enemy down lower and McGuire broke for the shot. Even if he were attacking a trainer, he wouldn't be at stall plus a few knots, he'd just make a firing pass and reposition.
3) He was a veteran. He KNEW how much speed firing the gun would lose. If he were at stall plus a few knots, he would have disengaged and repositioned. All the items I have read indicate the primary reason was not dropping tanks. That lends credence to the incident being early in the mission, while the tanks were mostly full.
4) If you have a plane that makes 350 mph down low, 400 mph up high, and stalls at 105 mph, you don't generally enter combat at 115 mph, even if you are a veteran and the theater's second leading ace.
It is very much more likely he stalled while pulling too hard for the configuration than stalled while shooting his guns.
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
