Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
There's an explanation in there somewhereBecause highlighting a plane's alleged performance advantage at a height where very little actual combat took place...
Because highlighting a plane's alleged performance advantage at a height where very little actual combat took place while either downplaying or not mentioning at all those lower altitudes where combat did take place tends to give a skewed picture. Same goes for situations where a plane subtype that saw little or no combat gets used in place of a more common sub-model.
No single piston powered aircraft could be optimized for peak performance at all altitudes. Compromises had to made. The question is wither the compromises were so sever as to seriously limit the planes combat ability at the altitudes it was not designed for.
<snip>
It turned out that high altitude operations were harder than it was first thought but without 20/20 hindsight who would have neglected or written off combat over 30,000ft when planning aircraft in WW II?
One man's account of P47 prowess in ACM and this was undoubtedly not at the P47s best altitude. Ralph Linnekin, "80 knots To Mach 2" " That useful altitude reference is in honor of the P47, which is difficult to categorise. The N version is credited with something on the order of 469 mph, but at 32000 feet. What reciprocating engine airplanes actually fought at 32000 feet?
It may be useful to fly that high, but at what cost. The P47 was a very good airplane with a fine combat record. It was not, however lauded as a sterling performer.
The airplane had a huge turbo supercharger that, by a combination of drag and mechanical power bleed off must have caused a substantial performance degradation at other than optimum altitudes.
I know a couple of people in a Bearcat squadron who had an inadvertant encounter with four late model P47s one day in 1947. ( Inadvertant, hell. The Bearcats jumped them. What did you expect. The P47s were there.) It was no contest- partly because the Bearcat, below 10000 feet, could do absolutely everything better than anything else with a propeller
and at low altitudes could out accelerate most contemporary jets.
Nonetheless, our guys said that AD Skyraiders and even SB2C Helldivers flown aggressively had at other times given them as much trouble as the P47s.
Dav, my reading on B17 missions in the ETO indicates that they seldom flew missions as high as 30000 feet. More like low twenties to twenty five thousand feet. Loaded B24s even lower.
Would this be a command preference, or down to platform limitations (esp the ability of the crew to operate at 30,000ft) and bombing accuracy?Dav, my reading on B17 missions in the ETO indicates that they seldom flew missions as high as 30000 feet. More like low twenties to twenty five thousand feet. Loaded B24s even lower.
...is pretty much the perfect answerCeiling limits while loaded, balancing bomber accuracy with the threat from flak (and fighters) and impact on crews and equipment.
Dav, my reading on B17 missions in the ETO indicates that they seldom flew missions as high as 30000 feet. More like low twenties to twenty five thousand feet. Loaded B24s even lower.
Dav, my reading on B17 missions in the ETO indicates that they seldom flew missions as high as 30000 feet. More like low twenties to twenty five thousand feet. Loaded B24s even lower.