Interceptor vs Escort.

[lesofprimus]

At least I dont revert to name calling like you do

If u want to start name calling, I will.... Ive seen pussies like u on this board before, and u know what??? They aint here anymore....

If u want to disagree with someone and their information, feel free... But if u continue to do so in the snotty, uppity, "I'm better than u" attitude, I'll break it off in ur ass......

I was showing my colleagues at work your posts, and they had a good laugh at you.

Have them come down here and laugh at my face...... U internet geeks amuse me to no end....

One of them teaches at a local college and she said she see's people like you from time to time.

And???? Like u know me, or she knows me.... Ur just like the turd I flushed this morning....

Know it all's who get emotional when someone challenges their facts.

U mind showing me where I said I was a know it all??? Ur the one that comes in here with all ur little statistics and so called "reference" material, and starts telling everyone ur right and all of us other "Amateurs" that we're wrong....

My grandfather was a Black Sheep, and I have been around the Fighter Ace community since I was old enough to walk... Ive accessed more information and data than I can remember... Ive had access to many many different individuals and for u to sit there in ur little computer chair with ur bullshiit "youre wrong" attitude dont belong here....

Blow it out ur ass....

If u want to contribute here, do so in a productive, informative way.... Not in the piss ass way u have been.....

If not, carry ur happy ass to another site and spew ur crap ass attitude on them...

And BTW, remember one thing, arguing with Administrators is not the best way to start out ur membership here.....

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

that's true, heck even i can't pull rank over an admin!

but i've gotta say i objected to him calling us ammatures, that's why we're here, to learn, no, some of us, don't know everything about everything in the way you ceem to think you do, but i bet i could make you're knowledge of the lanc look like it came from an osprey book

 

[syscom3]

Were all amatures. Me, you and everyone.

Unless you have a bona fide degree from a reputable college in aviation history (or in some cases, one of the many fields in aerospace),, or have actually put stick time in flying the aircraft you talk about, I dont think you could be considered an expert.

Noone here has still addressed NAVAIR about his comment about horsepower requirements for 500 mph flight. He brings up some valid points and some of you act like "how dare someone question me".

lesoprimus, if your admin position makes you think you can call me some funny names, cause you can kick me off, go ahead. I will have a hearty laugh.

 

[Nonskimmer]

We're all here because we share an interest in WWII aviation. Some have a great deal of knowledge, others want to learn, and still others just simply enjoy talking about it. Arguments ensue all the time. Sometimes it's a debate and sometimes it's nothing but a pissing match. No one likes to be pissed on (except maybe lanc ), and many are all too happy to return it in kind. You may even notice a generous helping of spam here and there.

Nothing wrong with a good heated debate, but bona fide troublemakers will have a short stay.

 

[syscom3]

Thanks for the words Nonskimmer. I will consider this little spat as being over and things back to normal.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

but i've gotta say i objected to him calling us ammatures

Unless you have a bona fide degree from a reputable college in aviation history (or in some cases, one of the many fields in aerospace),, or have actually put stick time in flying the aircraft you talk about, I dont think you could be considered an expert.

I've been in the aircraft industry 28 years. I've worked for Lockheed, Boeing, Northrop, Sikorsky, ans Ryan aircraft. I've done aircraft maintenance on everything from a Cessna 150 to a 747 including MiGs F-86s and PBYs. I have 720 hours flight time and Hold a CFI, A&P and IA. My point? I could be considered an amateur by some but a skilled professional by others. I'm still leaning! Aviation amateurs are those who have a perception of an aircraft's history or performance and lock that perception in their mind, either by nationalistic or personal bias and refuse to debut or show no basis for their argument.

(I'm off the soap box now!)

 

[NAVAIR]

Noone here has still addressed NAVAIR about his comment about horsepower requirements for 500 mph flight. He brings up some valid points and some of you act like "how dare someone question me".

I can actually answer that question myself. I e-mailed a couple of aeronautical engineers, pals of mine, one of which ran the calculation based upon the data he has on the Ta 152H-1 and its powerplant. This gentleman is considered an expert on German aircraft technology. His reply is as follows:

"Of course, the power requirement would be highly altitude-dependend. Using Wilbus' figure of 472 mph @ 41000 ft as standard top speed, it's achieved on just 1080 hp (plus a considerable amount of exhaust thrust).

To get to 500 mph, or 106% of the original speed, you'd just have to produce 118% of the original power, or 1280 hp. Since the original power is achieved on 120 g/s GM-1 injection and the GM-1 system will yield a maximum of 150 g/s, this power increase is well in reach for the Jumo 213E.

However, 150 g/s is only cleared for 42650 ft and above, and I believe you might end up melting important parts of your engines if you engage it below that while aiming for the 500 mph mark.

There are possible explanations how a Ta 152H could have been flown at 500 mph - experimental engine, prototype with low fuel load and without combat equipment, or - maybe the highest probability guess - an airspeed reading not corrected for compressiblity error.

I agree that such a record flight would probably have been mentioned in the extensive literature on the type, and in the absence of data I'd consider the 500 mph claim as plain wishful thinking."

Therefore, if Erich has any test data showing sustained level speeds of 500 mph, it would be received with great interest by a number of people I am in communication with.

My regards,

NAVAIR

 

[Udet]

Mr. Navair:

Right. I do understand your comments.


Now, back on topic, I do think I stick to my questions:

What was the purpose of citing this?

"The idea of the Me 262 as the potentially decisive wonder weapon is one of the most enduring myths in airpower history."


The debate as to whether the Germans could have deployed it in significant numbers by early/mid 1943 is current. Some say "no, others say "yes".

Whatever the actual potential of German industry was, there is something for sure: the Schwalbe itself could not win the war. We all know it; not even most of the men who flew it thought of such possibility.

So I wonder if most allied historians and researchers are fighting ghosts of their own creation.

An amusing issue is it´d appear winners have a real bad taste in their mouths: they must live with the notion it was not them who first flew and operated jets in combat. Following logically, the consequence of such facts is that the very first jet aces in the history of airwarfare are the hated Germans, and not them, the liberators of the world.

One more thing about the Me 262: I do not doubt mr. Richard Miller is a very honorable and devoted researcher, but many, me included, will argue his comment:


"...remained essentially a prototype pressed into service..."; same when one reads "...a minuscule number of kills...". ???

The Gloster Meteor was a prototype; it did not see any action (by the way, a piece of crap when compared to the Me 262). The USA designs were located in the same category.

(It´d be interesting to know what their definition of prototype is. Tell me mr. Navair, talking about prototypes, where lies the difference between the dreaded P-51 H, N or M P-47s -which did not see action in the ETO- and the Me 262, fully operational and shooting down enemy bombers and fighters?)

That a significant number of kills achieved by the jets were/are not confirmed is true. Likewise, the bulk of such unconfirmed kills have not been discarded. To say the number of kills remained "minuscule" can be misleading.

Is it necessary to remind you a number of Luftwaffe experten -flying such an "unreliable jet prototype"- shot down more enemy planes than the vast majority of the USAAF aces attained flying their propelled craft?

A noted man -not necessarily for his exploits during the war- Mr. Chuck Yeager enjoys the chit-chat, chin-wagging very much; a complete especialist when it comes to ridicule the Germans...hold on, he was surpassed in combat and shot down by a German pilot. Well, Kurt Welter more than doubled mr. Yeager´s total bag flying the Me 262.

It is just like if i´d get in the ring, have the fight with my opponent ending with both my eyes bruised, swollen lips, bleeding nose and mauled ribs to then get the microphones and make fun on what a mediocre fighter the man that squeezed the hell out of me is.


Me 262 aces: the "they had a target rich environment" poem does not hold water. The only thing the allies have managed to admit -painfully- is that on the flat run the thing was well beyond the capabilities of anything they had. That´s about it.

Are they so sure flat speed was its sole strong point? The about complete inadequacy of the Me 262, as depicted by Mr. Muller and many others, added to the overwhelming numerical superiority of the enemy could not have produced the number of jet aces as it is now recorded.

Also you said anyone flying virtually any plane can shoot down anyone. A wide open statement there. Correct, not entirely though. No matter how genius a fighter pilot is if complete inadequacy of his plane becomes part of the equation.

Even the Mossie, a true great plane, ended with its nuts barbecued when it met with the Me 262 of Kommando Welter.



The Ta 152. Likewise, no one´s suggested here it could change the direction of the war. Yep, only a few dozens reached service. So what?

Again, the Ta 152´s guarding jet bases or runways is another hell of a myth; it´s been duly debunked.

You make a point when stating the fight takes place where the threat is. That i fully agree.

The G-6/AS, G-10 and K-4 could comfortably perform in the altitude where the threat was flying. So why is it the allies enjoy so much the "it did not see the kind of action it was originally conceived to perform". Absolute non-sense.

Your comments on the Fw 190As are too wide and unspecified. Below 22,000 the Butcher Bird is second to none Mr. Navair.


Got to end this posting for it´s gotten too long, not before adding a comment directed to mr. syscom:

I am glad you brought up the "bouncing" issue here. You asked if German jet victories over Mustangs were via bouncing.

You ought to know it was precisely via "the bouncing" the way the USAAF won the air war over Europe.

I think I can detect you are another case of the allied propaganda pill swallowed without proper prescription.

What makes you think an air force with the bulk of its pilots flying a fistful of dozens of missions could make the alleged superb pilots history depicts?

Sure they had very capable planes, mainly the Jug, but the overwhelming numerical superiority, whether you like the idea or not, is fundamental in understanding the allied complete and undisputed victory.

 

[NAVAIR]

Mr. Navair:


One more thing about the Me 262: I do not doubt mr. Richard Miller is a very honorable and devoted researcher, but many, me included, will argue his comment:

The Gloster Meteor was a prototype; it did not see any action (by the way, a piece of crap when compared to the Me 262). The USA designs were located in the same category.

(It´d be interesting to know what their definition of prototype is. Tell me mr. Navair, talking about prototypes, where lies the difference between the dreaded P-51 H, N or M P-47s -which did not see action in the ETO- and the Me 262, fully operational and shooting down enemy bombers and fighters?)

That a significant number of kills achieved by the jets were/are not confirmed is true. Likewise, the bulk of such unconfirmed kills have not been discarded. To say the number of kills remained "minuscule" can be misleading.

Is it necessary to remind you a number of Luftwaffe experten -flying such an "unreliable jet prototype"- shot down more enemy planes than the vast majority of the USAAF aces attained flying their propelled craft?

A noted man -not necessarily for his exploits during the war- Mr. Chuck Yeager enjoys the chit-chat, chin-wagging very much; a complete especialist when it comes to ridicule the Germans...hold on, he was surpassed in combat and shot down by a German pilot. Well, Kurt Welter more than doubled mr. Yeager´s total bag flying the Me 262.

It is just like if i´d get in the ring, have the fight with my opponent ending with both my eyes bruised, swollen lips, bleeding nose and mauled ribs to then get the microphones and make fun on what a mediocre fighter the man that squeezed the hell out of me is.

Me 262 aces: the "they had a target rich environment" poem does not hold water. The only thing the allies have managed to admit -painfully- is that on the flat run the thing was well beyond the capabilities of anything they had. That´s about it.

Are they so sure flat speed was its sole strong point? The about complete inadequacy of the Me 262, as depicted by Mr. Muller and many others, added to the overwhelming numerical superiority of the enemy could not have produced the number of jet aces as it is now recorded.

Udet, I'm going to reply over several posts in order to retain context.

All early jet fighters were prototypes to some degree. All aircraft have a development cycle, usually measured in years. I think Muller is stating the obvious in that the Me 262 was rushed into production without the benefit of a full development program. It's obvious that their "present emergency" precluded that luxury. On the other hand, Britain was able to proceed at a less frenzied rate. While the Meteor III was not especially fast, it eventually resulted in the prototype for the Meteor F Mk. 4, which flew 10 days after Germany threw in the towel. As you may know, the F Mk. 4 offered significantly better performance than the Me 262, but its development took three years.

Lockheed's P-80 was also developed more thoroughly than the 262. Because Lockheed had more time to dedicate to development, the P-80 was more refined than the expedited 262. Had Germany more time to fully develop the 262 and its engines, I believe it would have been competitive for several years to come. As it was, even though the P-80A was in squadron service by late 1945, it was not fully sorted for another 12 months and that is reflected in its high accident rate.

That said, the Me 262 was a remarkable aircraft and even more remarkable when one considers the conditions under which it was developed and manufactured.

As to its effectiveness against fighters... Limited in several regards. Agility was poor and acceleration wasn't great. A 262 could not afford to "dogfight" with P-51Ds or Spitfire Mk. XIVs. Attempting to maneuver with these fighters means loading the airframe, and loading the airframe means burning off energy. "Getting slow means getting dead".

Therefore, the 262 pilot needs to rely on his speed to get in and out. This means bouncing unsuspecting enemy pilots, or attacking when they are engaged with another German fighter.

Inherent to high-speed engagements it the inability to rapidly adjust point of aim. Should the target aircraft detect the 262, he can easily maneuver out of plane and the 262 will have no ability to get a gun solution. That is, unless he elects to cut power and attempt to maneuver with the prop fighter (an unwise choice). First, because the 262 doesn't have the drag of a propeller to slow it down, so overshooting is the probable outcome. Second, virtually every WWII prop driven fighter will out-turn the 262 with relative ease. I think it's safe to say that fighters where not the primary target of Me 262s, but that the German pilot would not hesitate to clobber a fighter if the fighter's pilot was not paying attention.

While I cannot recite any numbers off the top of my head, I'd wager that the vast majority of 262 victories were bombers.

As to the P-51H: It was in full production and was already deployed to combat units at the war's end. North American had one factory on line and the Dallas plant was about to begin assembly. This was a fully developed, combat ready aircraft. Designated for the PTO, along with the P-47N. Could have been deployed to ETO if needed (had the war been prolonged).

P-47N: Fully operational and heavily involved in combat by August of 1945. Could have been in the ETO if needed.

P-47M: 130 built and delivered. At least 119 saw combat duty. Some teething issues resulting from badly sealed magnetos and ignition wire breakdown (the P-47C suffered the same problems when entering combat service). Developed from the P-47D-27-RE, this was a combat proven airplane. P-47Ms were exclusively operated by the elite 56th FG and saw significant combat in the ETO.

My regards,

NAVAIR

 

[NAVAIR]

Also you said anyone flying virtually any plane can shoot down anyone. A wide open statement there. Correct, not entirely though. No matter how genius a fighter pilot is if complete inadequacy of his plane becomes part of the equation.

Even the Mossie, a true great plane, ended with its nuts barbecued when it met with the Me 262 of Kommando Welter.

The Ta 152. Likewise, no one´s suggested here it could change the direction of the war. Yep, only a few dozens reached service. So what?

Again, the Ta 152´s guarding jet bases or runways is another hell of a myth; it´s been duly debunked.

You make a point when stating the fight takes place where the threat is. That i fully agree.

The G-6/AS, G-10 and K-4 could comfortably perform in the altitude where the threat was flying. So why is it the allies enjoy so much the "it did not see the kind of action it was originally conceived to perform". Absolute non-sense.

Your comments on the Fw 190As are too wide and unspecified. Below 22,000 the Butcher Bird is second to none Mr. Navair.

Udet, have you had the opportunity to fly one of the online flight sims, such as Aces High, Warbirds or IL-2? Before anyone decides to debate the accuracy of these sims, I'll quickly concede that it is impossible to completely duplicate the environment of actual aerial combat due to the lack of G effect and other factors. However, if the flight physics are excellent, the relative performance of different aircraft can be seen. Moreover, if nothing else, you will understand the tactics of aerial combat. Remember, you do not compete against AI, but against real people in real time.

I've played all of them. I have concluded that Aces High offers the best flight physics of the bunch. Indeed, I have set up the game for former fighter pilots who commented that the P-38, P-51 and P-40 flight models were dead on.

For the historian and WWII aviation buff, these sims can add a lot of perspective on how you view aerial combat and, perhaps of greater importance, your understanding of pilot combat reports.

I would urge anyone with a keen interest in WWII air warfare to try one of these flight sims. Aces High and Warbirds offer free downloads and a free two-week trial period. Offline flight is always free as are head-to head arenas set up on private servers. Be advised to check the minimal system requirements. Aces High requires a top shelf video card and considerable RAM to truly enjoy the graphics. You should also invest in a quality joystick. I use CH Products stick, throttle and rudder pedals (the best in the industry), but Saitek and Thrustmaster offer adequate hardware for a lot less investment. You might also consider checking out the latest TrackIR gear at http://www.naturalpoint.com.

You might find it interesting that more than a few active fighter pilots (from the USN, USAF, RAF and IAF fly Aces High). The learning curve is severe and you will require many hours (literally hundreds) to become proficient enough to survive in the main combat arena.

That's my job, I teach basic and advanced Air Combat Maneuvering in the training arena. Yo would also be surprised at how the badly the real fighter jocks are abused when they first show up all full of piss and vinegar. Many of the regular sim pilots have tens of thousands of hours flying combat sims and this experience is too much for even a professional fighter pilot to cope with. Like everyone else, they must hone their skills considerably to become competitive; although they already have mastered the theory, giving them a big leg up on a true neophyte.

Here's some screenshots from Aces High, no restrictions on use.

A Finn 109G-10 clobbers a Soviet La-5FN

The Aces High Dora9 attacking a B-24J

Anyway, back on topic.

Flying these sims demontrates that a lowly Hurricane MK.II can utterly obliterate a Me 262 should the Hurricane pilot get within range of his four Hispano cannons. This happens because the 262 pilot made a stupid mistake, exercised poor situational awareness or simply misjudged his energy state relative to the enemy. Within the sim, the 262 pilot is virtually untouchable if he elects to play it safe and stay fast. You will find that these sims completely validate the threat the 262 presented to the Allies in 1944. You will also see that the 262 is as dead as a roadkill skunk if the pilot allows his jet to get too slow or too low.

Remember this as it is the Gospel truth: A highly skilled pilot in a Spitfire Mk.V is far more lethal than a novice in an Me 262. A fast plane will keep you alive, but it will not kill the enemy for you. You will note that there were few, if any novice pilots flying 262s for the Luftwaffe, most were drawn from the surviving ranks of the elite, among the very best on earth.

The mere thought of running into a guy like Macky Steinhoff flying a 262 would send shivers down my spine.

As to the Ta 152. It had great potential.

My friend and Luftwaffe expert writes: "I'm not sure why the Ta 152H was built at all - it seems that the German leadership feared that the B-29 would be sent to Europe and fly at altitudes where the standard Luftwaffe fighters were out of their element."

Clearly, had the RLM provided the resources to more quickly develop the 152 series (I think that the 152C was the plane that deserved the focus), the Mustangs and Jugs would have had a much rougher time of it, and the higher performance P-51H would have been rushed to the ETO (it was initially planned for ETO deployment, but Gen. Arnold over-ruled this as he wanted the emphasis placed on escorting B-29s to Japan).

As to the Antons... In 1941 the 190A was the best fighter in the world. By 1943, the P-51B was superior below 22,000 feet. Considerably faster, and a better turner (those maneuver flaps really made a difference), the P-51B was still world class when the war ended. I should not overlook the Spitfire LF Mk. IX, which was extremely capable down low. I like the Spitfire Mk. XII too, another monster down low. By 1945 the Antons were outclassed in just about every parameter of flight performance by the Tempest, Spit XIV, P-51D and the latest Thunderbolts. On the other hand, the Dora9 was a match for any of them, assuming its pilot avoided the standard traps of attempting to maneuver with any of these for more than a few turns. Indeed, the Dora9 was as pure an energy fighter as ever existed, working the vertical and maintaining an energy advantage. In this respect it was extremely lethal. However, like 190A-8, it was dogmeat in a sustained turning fight with Spitfires or Mustangs, assuming pilots of equal skill levels. Especially dangerous for the Dora9 was the superlative Spitfire Mk.XIV, which out-performed the Dora in every category with the exception of roll rate. If I had to pick the best air superiority fighter fielded by the Allies in the ETO, the Spit XIV would be my choice.

Consider this; just because the Anton enjoyed reasonable success against the Allied onslaught of 1944, it doesn't mean that the Antons were better or even nearly as good. Their success would properly be laid at the feet of the excellent pilots of the Luftwaffe, who made due with older designs while the RLM dragged its feet getting more competitive fighters into mass production. Of course, that's my opinion, your's may differ.

My regards,

NAVAIR

 

[plan_D]

I'd take the Spitfire 21 over the Spitfire XIV. It's handling was practically the same and it's only inferior characteristic to the XIV was it's slower rate of climb to altitude. Deployed to 91 Sqdn. in January 1945, it flew combat sorties before the war ended hunting for anything German, flying or rolling.

 

[KraziKanuK]

On the 262 vs the P-80

In the book Messeschmitt Me 262 by Walter J Boyne (ISBN 0-87474-276-5) it is mentioned that in a post war report by Al Boyd, the report was surpressed because it was so favourable towards the Me262 when compared to the P-80.

Aces High when compared to the Il-2 series is in the second league.

 

[evangilder]

I have a couple of comments, Navair. Yes, the P-51H was in full production by the wars end, but none saw combat. It was supplied to a few units in the summer of 1945 and were still going through the process of working toward operational service when the war ended.

The P-47M would not be what I consider as having seen "significant combat". The early teething problems kep it out of service until the last few weeks of the war. A few weeks of combat against an enemy that was only a few steps away from surrender is not necessarily indicative of a great aircraft. I do believe that it was a good airplane, but I wonder how it would have faired against the earlier experten.

While I agree that there are some things that flight sims are good for, I still would not use it as a basis for performance of all aircraft. They may have "got it right" with some of the American aircraft, but how do we know about the German, Japanese or some of the more obscure aircraft? Also, no G loads or feel for the aircraft take some of the elements of flight out of it.

Knowing that there will be no physical damage to your person or anyone else on the ground or in the sky will make it easier and a person more prone to take risks that they might not be willing to take in a real aircraft. This can be good or bad. While it can make a pilot push the aircraft harder to it's limits, it may also put them into the habit of taking risky manuevers. With jet aircraft, they have to be able to know how to control the G forces on their body. Aerial combat has not only the elements of the aircraft, but the physical effects of the movements on the body. That is something that a flight sim cannot provide.

 

[NAVAIR]

Noone here has still addressed NAVAIR about his comment about horsepower requirements for 500 mph flight. He brings up some valid points and some of you act like "how dare someone question me".

I can actually answer that question myself. I e-mailed a couple of aeronautical engineers, pals of mine, one of which ran the calculation based upon the data he has on the Ta 152H-1 and its powerplant. This gentleman is considered an expert on German aircraft technology. His reply is as follows:

"Of course, the power requirement would be highly altitude-dependend. Using Wilbus' figure of 472 mph @ 41000 ft as standard top speed, it's achieved on just 1080 hp (plus a considerable amount of exhaust thrust).

To get to 500 mph, or 106% of the original speed, you'd just have to produce 118% of the original power, or 1280 hp. Since the original power is achieved on 120 g/s GM-1 injection and the GM-1 system will yield a maximum of 150 g/s, this power increase is well in reach for the Jumo 213E.

However, 150 g/s is only cleared for 42650 ft and above, and I believe you might end up melting important parts of your engines if you engage it below that while aiming for the 500 mph mark.

There are possible explanations how a Ta 152H could have been flown at 500 mph - experimental engine, prototype with low fuel load and without combat equipment, or - maybe the highest probability guess - an airspeed reading not corrected for compressiblity error.

I agree that such a record flight would probably have been mentioned in the extensive literature on the type, and in the absence of data I'd consider the 500 mph claim as plain wishful thinking."

Therefore, if Erich has any test data showing sustained level speeds of 500 mph, it would be received with great interest by a number of people I am in communication with.

My regards,

NAVAIR

Let me add another tidbit to this discussion. This gentleman is a founding member of the White 1 Foundation, which is restoring an Fw 190F-8 for flight. He has more production and test data on Fock Wulfs than anyone I am aware of. Here's his brief comments:

"I have never seen a 500mph Ta152. Now there is a 770kph (+) calculated chart for FW190D12 performance.

For flight tested results the FW-190D12 hit 730kph with the Ta-152C taking the top spot at 745kph."

My regards,

NAVAIR

 

[lesofprimus]

"I have never seen a 500mph Ta152. Now there is a 770kph (+) calculated chart for FW190D12 performance.

For flight tested results the FW-190D12 hit 730kph with the Ta-152C taking the top spot at 745kph."

For those of us with a 8th grade math level, what are those figures in MPH???

U posted there Navair that the Ta-152C had the top spot of 745kph....

Please dont compare imperial with metric information.... It confuses us less geekier members.....

 

[evangilder]

745 kph would equal about 463 MPH, Les. I use an online converter at

http://www.onlineconversion.com

It's great for just about any measurement too.

 

[lesofprimus]

I know evan, I was just trying to make a point... I have the same conversion site in my bookmarks.....

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Im with even on this, and I am sure that FBJ will agree also. As some one who flies daily, I dont get off on flight sims. To me you can not recreate the reality of flying eneogh. That is just my opinion though.

Unless you have a bona fide degree from a reputable college in aviation history (or in some cases, one of the many fields in aerospace),, or have actually put stick time in flying the aircraft you talk about, I dont think you could be considered an expert.

First of all let me just state that I am not an expert and nor do I claim to be one, except maybe in rotary wing aircraft and mostly the UH-60 Blackhawk because I have flown and worked on for almost 6 years now. However I do agree with what you are saying in that know one can be an exact expert on WW2 aviation except for the people who flew them however there are a lot of people here that have done exceptional research on the field and interviewed hundreds of WW2 fighter pilots.

Here is the conclusion that I have come to. If you have interviewed US pilots you are going to have a completely different idea of what the truth is than if you had interviewed German pilots and the same is vise versa for those that have interviewed German rather than US pilots. This is probably true because both sides obviously claim the superiority of there aircraft and will make claims that there aircraft could do what the other could not. The same is today in the modern militaries. It is rivalries like this that bring fame to aircraft. Us Blackhawk guys have a never ending rivalry with the Apache guys about whos aircraft is actually better. (We know that ares is though ) The same can be said for the WW2 pilots. If all you read is allied information than you are obviously going to talk about how much better allied aviation was. If all you read is German information then you are going to believe the opposite. So in this case the only true experts are the pilots themselves and they are unfortunatly dieing off at an alarming rate.

Therefore everyone here can take and learn from others what they have experienced from talking to these great people because lets face it technical manuals, flight sims, and even performance charts will not tell the whole truth, only the crews that flew them can.

 

[NAVAIR]

I have a couple of comments, Navair. Yes, the P-51H was in full production by the wars end, but none saw combat. It was supplied to a few units in the summer of 1945 and were still going through the process of working toward operational service when the war ended.

The P-47M would not be what I consider as having seen "significant combat". The early teething problems kep it out of service until the last few weeks of the war. A few weeks of combat against an enemy that was only a few steps away from surrender is not necessarily indicative of a great aircraft. I do believe that it was a good airplane, but I wonder how it would have faired against the earlier experten.

While I agree that there are some things that flight sims are good for, I still would not use it as a basis for performance of all aircraft. They may have "got it right" with some of the American aircraft, but how do we know about the German, Japanese or some of the more obscure aircraft? Also, no G loads or feel for the aircraft take some of the elements of flight out of it.

Knowing that there will be no physical damage to your person or anyone else on the ground or in the sky will make it easier and a person more prone to take risks that they might not be willing to take in a real aircraft. This can be good or bad. While it can make a pilot push the aircraft harder to it's limits, it may also put them into the habit of taking risky manuevers. With jet aircraft, they have to be able to know how to control the G forces on their body. Aerial combat has not only the elements of the aircraft, but the physical effects of the movements on the body. That is something that a flight sim cannot provide.

Due to the War Production Board's insistance, the P-51D/K series received top priority at North American. Development of the redesigned P-51H was leisurely at best. Initially, Dutch Kindelberger and Lee Atwood tried to expedite the development of the NA-105, which was ordered in 1943. This was to be the redesign that North American so badly wanted to do to better utilize the Packard Merlin. As it was, the XP-51B was a quick cobble-up job that proved successful enough that it was ordered into production immediately.

Evolving from the Na-105 was the XP-51F and XP-51G. Atwood wanted to rush ahead and develop a production fighter based upon the test data generated from the XP-51F. Atwood wanted to use the Rolls Royce Merlin 145M engine (also fitted to the XP-51G), but was informed that Rolls Royce could not provide more than a few of them. Using the standard V-1650-7 engine, the first prototype XP-51F flew on February 14th, 1944. One was sent to Britain for testing at the A&AEE at Boscombe Down. Prior to this, Atwood and Kindelberger began lobbying to get a contract for a new Mustang, eventually designated the P-51H. Having a commitment from Packard to supply their new V-1650-9, it still took a while to get the program funded. This is where the WPB interferes and demands that no resources be diverted from P-51D/K production. Kindelberger was less than happy with this, and as he stated after the war, "our planning people assured me that we could have delivered the first P-51H by late October of '44." As it was, the first production example didn't fly until February of 1945. Kindelberger informed the WPB that a 21 day suspension of preliminary assembly of P-51Ds would be required to progressively retool the California plant. Kindelberger wrote, "there would be a suspension of delivery for only 3 days between when the last P-51D rolled out and the first P-51H was wheeled out for test flight. Our planning was such that for all intent and purposes, there would be no significant interruption."

However, the WPB was concerned that transitioning to the new fighter would take months and that units receiving the aircraft would not be combat ready before attrition of P-51Ds would be prohibitive. That may seem like a valid concern. However, the WPB ignored the fact that fighter Groups in 8th AF had transitioned on the fly, with combat units getting less than a week to familiarize themselves with the P-51B before going operational. Kindelberger stated this fact and offered to supply a small army of tech reps to ease the transition. No dice, the WPB wasn't willing to allocate the resources, being fat dumb and happy with the P-51D. But just remember, this is the same bunch that continued to fund the XP-75 program that had already been deemed a hopeless failure by Hap Arnold. Countless millions were poured down that bottomless hole and the project sucked up a great deal of people who could better be utilized building viable fighters.

Eventually, the P-51H was transitioned into the production line, but not in time to do anything beyond flying a few combat air patrols far from any action. It could have been in squadron service by January of 1945. Indeed, this situation was not unlike that faced by Kurt Tank as he tried to muster the resources to get his Ta 152 developed and into service. Bureaucrats are always three steps behind the designers....

In recent years more and more of Kindelberger's papers have surfaced. Unfortunately, not much pertains to the Mustangs. Much of is from the post war period, between WWII and Korea. Those researching the evolution of North American jet aircraft have found that this material sheds new light on this transitory period. Of this, the most remarkable stuff appeared in test pilot Al Blackburn's book Aces Wild, which establishes (but does not prove beyond a doubt) that the XP-86 was the first aircraft to exceed Mach 1 on October 1, 1947. That was a full two weeks before Yeager did it in the XS-1 rocket plane. Even the USAF has acknowledged this by revising their claim to the title to include the caveat of "in level flight". Officially, the XP-86 did it in November of 1947, with the press release being being issued in April 1948. By then, the transonic performance of the Sabre was already universally known and there was no need to continue believing that the Soviets didn't already know.

As to the P-47M; have you seen the test data of production aircraft? It's not a question of whether or not it would be a good fighter. It was a superlative fighter. At full combat load it made 373 mph at sea level, and depending upon weight and configuration, between 475 and 485 mph at 30,000 feet. Rate of climb from sea level was better than that of the P-38L. Above 20,000 feet its rate of climb was equal to or better than anything flying in the ETO, Axis or Allied. And this performance is prior to the field reps re-rigging the engines to permit overboosting for combat emergencies (as was done with prior P-47s). This was true monster, but had no future due its limited range, making it unsuitable for the Pacific war. This was rectified by the P-47N.

As to flight sims: I've already stated that they cannot reproduce all the physical inputs of real flight. And yes, there are lots of players who view these online sims as mere games without regard realism.

Nontheless, you find that in organized events, where you but one life, they do come as close to the actual experience possible to attain. Aces High is about to release a new sim, titled Tour of Duty. This sim will reward surviving and completing missions, while penalizing deaths and mission failures. It will far more realistic and immersive than the current crop of online sims. The debilitating effects of sustain G exposure will be modeled as well. Pilots will find that their aircraft will behave as it should when the pilot is fatigued, with progressive lowering limits based upon exposure. This aspect will be adjusted as required during the beta testing.

As to another's comment about IL-2 vs Aces High... I suspect that he hasn't flown Aces High lately, if ever. A new graphic engine and the addition of new, high resolution graphics has closed the eye-candy gap between it and IL-2. In terms of flight physics and accuracy of flight envelope, Aces High has always been more accurate than IL-2 and will remain the leader in that category for the foreseeable future. As I've said, I've tried all of them, I base my assessment on my experience in actual military aircraft, including seat time in TA-4Js and back seat rides in F4-Js. Admittedly, that isn't more than 28 hours of flight time, but it's a heck of a lot more than 99.9% of the guys flying these sims. You can add over 2,300 hours if aircrew time is factored in.

My regards,

NAVAIR

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Well I have almost 1300 hours of crew time and I will tell you that you it still will never be realistic eneogh to compare to real flying. I dont care how many games some one plays. You do not get the feeling of the seat going up your butt crack in tight maneuvers, you dont feel the blood rushing to your head or to your feet. You dont feel the cold or the heat. You dont feel the vibrations or actually hear and feel the bullets hitting your aircraft. Having experienced all of that in my almost 1300 hours and climbing I can say that I dont find them realistic at all.