Is Spitfire relly superior to FW-190?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Status
Not open for further replies.
But in any case, a tricky plane to fly requires sufficient training. The USAAF knew it wasnt simple, and these levels of training were not met. Simple as that.
 
Maybe, but some airplanes that are difficult to fly become great assets once a pilot is seasoned in it. Sometimes its just a matter of how you do things. The Corsair was a miserable airplane to land on a carrier, but it was a great fighter. Sometimes making it easier to fly can make it less effective.

A standard Cessna will always try to right itself to level flight when you do something squirrely. That is how it was designed. The Pitts S2C, and aerobatic plane on the other hand will not. It is designed that way to be a great aerobatic plane. Not an easy bugger to fly, but a good pilot can do amazing things with it.
 
the lancaster kicks ass said:
FLYBOYJ said:
the lancaster kicks ass said:
it also took forever to go from cruise configuration to combat configuration...........

The P-38?

yes

Combat config? :scratch: All you got to do is push the throttles fwd first, push the props to high pitch and go, watching that you didn't overboost. I understand that the P-38 accelerated rapidly. :-k
 
the lancaster kicks ass said:
you assume the other man had followed you, and do you really think, that after you have, on instinct ;), dived after being bounced, you'd be able to switch to combat configuration whilst under severe G forces?? wouldn't you be using all your effort to concentrate on perhaps pulling out of your dive?? and you'd loose allot of speed again during the climb back up to meet your oponent, where you're easy prey again, what are you gonna do to get your speed up again?? dive??

Sorry Lanc, I have to disagree, you're bounced, you dive make turns in the dive and use the energy to build up speed and not over stress the airplane, at that point you decide to re-enter the fight or turn to home.

In the dive you "manage your energy," and use that to climb back up. That's fighter pilot 101 - I've had the opportunity to do some simulated dogfighting in T-33s, Fougas, and L-29s. The whole thing resembles a egg shape flight. At that point you look to exploit the opponent by entering high speed or low speed scissors, or just try to turn with the opponent. I actually learned its better to fight in the vertical. 8)
 
cheddar cheese said:
But in any case, a tricky plane to fly requires sufficient training. The USAAF knew it wasnt simple, and these levels of training were not met. Simple as that.

This was recognized in about 1943 and many P-38 pilots came out of multi-engine aircraft ranks (B-25 and A-20 pilots were frequently tapped to go to P-38s). Any multi engine recip aircraft could be tricky to fly, especially if you're a low time pilot. Even today in Generl Aviation, there is a large accident rate for multi engine aircraft (Cessna 300 series, Piper Aztecs etc.) because the pilots flying them don't stay proficient, especially in emergency engine out take off procedures. :shock:
 
Yes. Also the P-38 was designed to "Specification X-608. In Specification X-608, the aircraft was required to maintain a top speed of 360 mph, whereas previously designed aircraft were only required to maintain a top speed of 300 mph. This aircraft would also be required to operate at altitudes of 20,000 and contain firepower three or four times higher than any other existing fighter aircraft. Essentially, this aircraft would be able to perform any mission any other fighter would be capable of, but not limited to any specific one. " Essentially meaning that this was to be far superior to other fighters of the time. Imagine the difference going from a P-35 or P-36 into this.
 
FLYBOYJ said:
cheddar cheese said:
But in any case, a tricky plane to fly requires sufficient training. The USAAF knew it wasnt simple, and these levels of training were not met. Simple as that.

This was recognized in about 1943 and many P-38 pilots came out of multi-engine aircraft ranks (B-25 and A-20 pilots were frequently tapped to go to P-38s). Any multi engine recip aircraft could be tricky to fly, especially if you're a low time pilot. Even today in Generl Aviation, there is a large accident rate for multi engine aircraft (Cessna 300 series, Piper Aztecs etc.) because the pilots flying them don't stay proficient, especially in emergency engine out take off procedures. :shock:

Yeah but I personally have always loved the added security of having another engine.
 
cheddar cheese said:
Yes. Also the P-38 was designed to "Specification X-608. In Specification X-608, the aircraft was required to maintain a top speed of 360 mph, whereas previously designed aircraft were only required to maintain a top speed of 300 mph. This aircraft would also be required to operate at altitudes of 20,000 and contain firepower three or four times higher than any other existing fighter aircraft. Essentially, this aircraft would be able to perform any mission any other fighter would be capable of, but not limited to any specific one. " Essentially meaning that this was to be far superior to other fighters of the time. Imagine the difference going from a P-35 or P-36 into this.

And you're right CC - there was no aircraft available to provide a easy transistion, especially for a twin engine aircraft. A simialr thing happened to many countries after WWII when they went from the F-86 into the F-104. :rolleyes:
 
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
FLYBOYJ said:
cheddar cheese said:
But in any case, a tricky plane to fly requires sufficient training. The USAAF knew it wasnt simple, and these levels of training were not met. Simple as that.

This was recognized in about 1943 and many P-38 pilots came out of multi-engine aircraft ranks (B-25 and A-20 pilots were frequently tapped to go to P-38s). Any multi engine recip aircraft could be tricky to fly, especially if you're a low time pilot. Even today in Generl Aviation, there is a large accident rate for multi engine aircraft (Cessna 300 series, Piper Aztecs etc.) because the pilots flying them don't stay proficient, especially in emergency engine out take off procedures. :shock:

Yeah but I personally have always loved the added security of having another engine.

Yep, as long as the pilot says proficient ;)
 
And thats why there is training flights. They always seem boring but when the infimous words "Oh Shit!" are said you realize why you spent all those hours in the simulator and in the traffic pattern.
 
Also nicknamed Hoover because it sounded like a vacuum cleaner when it was taxiing. "Hey, mate, you missed a bit"
 
I haven't but my dad has. He said they used to joke about them hoovering the runway when ever they heard a F-104 taxiing.
 
Can I comit something close to sacrilage and ask if we are not over egging the P38.
If you read the trail we have a plane that can turn with anything in the sky, even a Zero and no doubt the Spit, both extreamely agile planes. All that metal and the forces that follow.
Match close to anything in a climb on one engine, I don't think so. I am sure that you have seen the shots of a Mossie doing a slow roll in a climb on one engine. Anyone seen a P38 doing the same?
Has the three times the firepower of any other fighter. Again those flying 190's Tempests, Spit 5C and even the humble Hurricane IIC would disagree. Four cannons each equal to 2.5 to 3 HMG's equals 10 - 12 HMG equivalent. These are more than equal to the 7 equivalent in the P38. Being on the centre line does make a large difference but it doesn't multiply things by a factor of 5.

Don't get me wrong, I believe the P38 was a fine plane that did a lot but we have to keep a sense of balance.

Now having lit the blue touchpaper, I will retire.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back