Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
What i meant by that, was that a pilot who single handedly shot down a bomber in a Tempest V, might get 1/4 credit for the kill, while the other three wingman, also get a 1/4 credit for the kill. This wasn't always the case, but you could see how, kill numbers can be flawed.
If you rely on what Wiki says...lol
Wiki - is always a decent point of reference if not always 100% correct. If it is only source, it is better than making it up.
I would also offer looking at cutaways of the aircraft, to see the disbursement of mass.
finally,
in my search for weight information, I found this article expressing the vulnerability of the engine.
napier sabre | 1944 | 0765 | Flight Archive
If one a/c was shot down and four guys received 1/4 credit, their is only 1.0 awarded. No over claim for your example.
This link shows a scan of a letter to the editor from an ex "Major?" in the RAF. Not much different from an opinion posted on these forums by any of us.
Also I checked a few sources on weights of both the R2800 and Napier Sabre, they are within 10 lbs of each other dry weight.
Magister: I give the radial engine the edge in survivabilty because it is air cooled.
The next route i could go with a demonstration of the superior durability of the P-47 airframe is that it could carry an external load of 2000lbs.
Bill - the hang weight of either airframe is most unlikely to be the structural limit analysis focus. More likely it would be a 7-8 g pullout with a full load of fuel and ammo. I suspect the same pullout with two 1000 pound bombs still attached would result in a very big hole in the ground but the wings would be somewhere else.
What was the external load the Tempest V could carry??
Fighter bombers going deep into Germany needed to be able fly high.
Actually they needed a lot of internal fuel if carrying bombs and rockets
Late war air to air combat was a "vultch contest"....highest planes often had the advantage and were more likely to keep it, as dogfighting was not as common and often discouraged from the allied side.
??? the basic Allied strategy was 'see a german fighter - kill it". You will rarely find debriefings which stated they did not attempt to engage because the German fighter had an altitude advantage - it was safer to turn into them and climb into the fighters than attempt to turn and run
I think the Tempest had its fighter bomber roll, but it would be better described as ground support. when i think of Bombs and rockets, the P-47 comes to mind, all though the Typhoon, as i mentioned twice before, was a better comparison.
This is just my opinion, which i'd back with sources, but ish....none of that seems to hold weight with this crowd.
You know...Seagulls are harder to shoot down, does that make them as durable as the P-47?? lol
watch out below....
Yup, altitude advantage has been a part of air combat since it's beginnings in WWI.Late war air to air combat was a "vultch contest"....highest planes often had the advantage and were more likely to keep it, as dogfighting was not as common and often discouraged from the allied side.
I think the Tempest had its fighter bomber roll, but it would be better described as ground support. when i think of Bombs and rockets, the P-47 comes to mind, all though the Typhoon, as i mentioned twice before, was a better comparison.
How high is 'high'? Ground attack aircraft didn't usually fly at high alt, nor did they go particularly deep into Germany, their targets being tactical in nature. In fact they commonly flew at low to medium alt, with escorting fighters above. The higher you are the harder it is to see targets on the ground and it takes a lot of extra fuel and time to climb higher with a heavy load of ordnance, which just has to come back down to the ground to be delivered. Exit from the target area was not done at high alt either.Fighter bombers going deep into Germany needed to be able fly high.
Try not to take me to literally, folks.
Planes still fought and engaged, but the classic dogfight where planes duked it out through twists and turns, gaining advantage...etc. was a thing of the past.
So turning and manuevering fightes were a 'thing of the past' in WWII?
Late war fights were energy fights. Usually relying on a dive of some sort to either evade an attack or, gain energy to take a swipe at an enemy plane.
Bill, simply - the WWII fighter versus fighter engagements (in the range of 100,000+ ) took all forms based on the tactical situation.
Come to think of it, that was probably always the more common tactic of the European theater even when Spit 1As were duking it out with early model FWs.
Anyhow, fighters were discouraged from dogfighting, meaning...they'd make their quick pass on a plane then get away. Long turn battles and jockeying for position was less common in both theaters because the planes weren't designed for that kind of performance. They were designed for speed.
Fighter pilots were discouraged from engaging in manuevers in which their opponents had either parity or an edge - that's it.
If the other guy had multiple advantages then it was more common to use your one advantage once and get away - for example P-47s were discouraged from turning fights with Fw 190s but did so all the time depending on the skill of the pilot.
I refuse to cite information that is readily available through a brief google search, or books.google. Or you can also flip through a few other threads and probably find enough information to write your own chapter on the History of WW2.
I can recommend reading anything by Martin Bowman, particularly his take on the P-47 and Bf109K from 1943 to 1945.
Come to think of it, that was probably always the more common tactic of the European theater even when Spit 1As were duking it out with early model FWs.