GregP
Major
Thanks Biff.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The typhoons had stripes......simples
Buck Casson couldn't tell Bader's Spitfire from a 109, Doh !
Those variants will have better climb and straight line speed, but did they offer better manoeuvrability?
In other words, will the tactics of the Spitfire pilot have to be changed much?
Malan, Byrne and Freeborn couldn't tell a Hurricane from a Bf 109 between them as Frank Rose could testify. Sadly Montague Hulton-Harrop could not, the first British pilot to die in the war, killed by his own side.
Cheers
Steve
That's why they had stripes
Cheers
Steve
Gents,
Here is another log on the fire with this climb rate comparison. Yes, an ideal way to compare aircraft is at the same weight (max fuel load, with weapons, etc.). However, the reality of combat doesn't really arrive at the beginning of the "test" with two aircraft with similar load outs. Reality I would think would be the Allied fighters arriving over X with quite a bit of fuel burned down, then engaging in combat with Axis aircraft that were just arriving at fight height, or still in the climb (depending on early warning systems).
What I think is a valid way of looking at things using the similar load out basis is how much of a performance advantage does one aircraft have over another. In the case of the Spit I would think in most scenario's over Europe it would be at the advantage versus Me-109 (both full load out) and or would be greater after having been airborne for longer (having burned out a larger percentage of total fuel than the his opponent).
Also lets not forget that the for the most part the 190 and 109 are both relatively short legged compared to late Spits and the US A/C. There lies one of the few advantages of being on the defensive, you can have better performing aircraft due to not needing to fly very far to get to the fight. But then again you are not very far from the fight, nor is you airfield, nor your family, nor most if not all things you find important...
Yes, the Mig-29 is a hotrod, and performs in many arenas better than the F-15, however he didn't get very far from the flag pole and would not be of much use in an offensive war. It had no legs.
Cheers,
Biff
You know Biff, I was thinking about your answer and I wonder if maybe things were very different in WWII. You tell me.
When you were blasting through the skies in an F-15 on Uncle Sam's dollar you had a rather wonderful radar in the front and the back. So your SA was coming from a knowledge of what was around you BVR. In WWII, I think (could be wrong here) that if they were escorting bombers then maybe they knew generally from where the enemy would come. But if the fighter pilots were on a mission not involving escort, they were probably faster and might or might not have a idea where the enemy might show up from and might or might not have info from radar.
The F-15 has only a radar for what's out front. We have a radar warning receiver for 360 degree coverage (it tells us when we are being locked up). I'm sure in WW2 as now, before you stepped for a mission you received an intel report with what they expected you would see. I'm sure ours are more accurate now, but the general flow I think remains the same. As for cruise speed, we tend to be faster in the high threat areas, and slower when outside those. I would think the fighters cruise speed in WW2 would depend on fuel, distance, and expected land time. Faster when time was tight, slower when time or fuel were not a problem.
If they were high up and in contact with home radar, maybe they knew in general. If they were low and sneaking in, then the good old Mark I eyeball might be all they had for warning, and SA started when bullets started hitting the plane in the case of an ambush or when they spotted the enemy in the case of a frontal approach. I wonder what percent of the time they had any information from gound-based radar and what percent of the time they were "on their own," but I'm not sure anybody knows for sure.
I may be wrong here, but SA is a modern invention of words for the state of being aware of what is going on around you, and I'm not too sure such a concept was ever taught to WWII aviators. They might have had to develop that on their own by combat experience and the luck of surviving it.
While they might not have called it SA back in the day, it is what it is. The SA they had came from the radio / bombers / other fighters / GCI if they had it, or from the Mk 1 eyeball. What you do with the SA you have can or will effect mission success.
Any thoughts on that? Do you know when SA was first taught? I thought it was a John Boyd thing, probably about the same time he developed his OODA loop.
I do not know when SA gained it's label. However, I would think that teaching a guy to employ a weapon (a fighter in this case) you would teach, fly, and debrief to an individual or groups "awareness" of his aircraft, his flight, and opponent or opponent's.
Cheers,
Biff
Yes, the Mig-29 is a hotrod, and performs in many arenas better than the F-15, however he didn't get very far from the flag pole and would not be of much use in an offensive war. It had no legs.
Cheers,
Biff