Maneuverability vs Speed

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

The Empty Weight is that of the aircraft before usable or disposable items like guns, ammo, fuel, oil, pilot are added but include the turrets, battery, radio
 
Hi
Looking at the images of Mohawks the difference is fairly obvious, Curtiss Mohawk IV BJ442, originally for the French is shown in November 1940, shows the Curtiss windscreen:

Note 5 Sqn. Mohawk in May 1942:

And more clearly on 155 Sqn. Mohawk in late 1943 (the rear seat armour may also be vaguely visible):

This and other modification was all probably done in the UK before going to the Far East. Those Mohawk IVs that were transferred to Portugal during 1941 also had armoured windscreen.
I have yet to find mention of SS tanks, that may have taken up a lot of resource time to sort out, or maybe just not mentioned in the secondary sources. The Cyclone problems took a lot of effort to sort out (The Finns replaced the engines in their Cyclone powered ex-French Hawks with Twin-Wasps), the problems were due, it appears, to "poor quality control and inept workmanship" in the factory under the conditions of expansion of production.
It is also interesting to note that Boscombe Down undertook: "Brief tests were made on AX882 (from June 1941) and BS747 (Aug 1941), both with modifications to the oil system to permit inverted flight." These were Mohawk Is also powered by Cyclones.

Mike
 
I have pointed out in the past that the TBD was not a stellar performer but I think it gets unfairly trashed for its performance at Midway. Substitute any torpedo bomber of its era in that attack and they would have suffered badly. The TBF lost 5 of 6 in their attack. Against strong fighter opposition all torpedo bombers did not do well. Flying low and slow in a path that is obvious to the defenders is a recipe for disaster. The USN had doubts about the viability of the torpedo bomber before the war and built the Ranger without torpedo capability (added later). The British developed a night attack capability to compensate for the dangers. Perhaps TBFs would have done better than the TBDs but they would have still suffered grievously. The fatality rates for torpedo bomber crews facing fighters in the first half of the war was staggering.
 

I thought a reply would be best once I'd left things cool for a few days. So here goes.

TROPE
a : a word or expression used in a figurative sense : FIGURE OF SPEECH
b: a common or overused theme or device : CLICHÉ

A trope is a cliche - and a blase 'radial engines are less vulnerable than an inline' IS a trope. Baseless or otherwise.

However, I *literally* addressed the subject by quoting a member of operational aircrew (a decorated FAA pilot to boot) who I knew personally. So equally literally, I have no idea why you think you've got the right to feel slighted or insulted and by exactly the same token, I haven't by your response?



and ...

The Hineri-komi (捻り込み—literal meaning: twist inside) was an air combat maneuver widely used by fighter pilots of Imperial Japanese Navy Air Service (IJNAS) through the Second Sino-Japanese War and the Pacific War. It allows an aircraft, which is being pursued by an enemy, to come at the pursuer's tail or to gain an opportunity to take a shot at it.




That IS genuinely interesting. But Zero (if you'll excuse the pun) mention in that definition, nor in the illustration you posted, of it being a manoeuvre specifically used to target the 'vulnerable' radiator of an allied aircraft, which was the context in which you mentioned it.

The sarcastic sounding -
you might want to notice
Click to expand...
- Il2 reference to armour seems irrelevant to the point. Of course they protected the engine including its radiator - and pilot. But if a radial engine was indeed significantly less vulnerable to battle damage than an inline, its got to be pause for rational thought to wonder: The Russians surely could and would have considered fitting one of the many excellent radials they had to the IL2 and forgone some of the huge weight penalty of much of that armour, eh?

I'm afraid I find it another example of your approach to much of the discourse across a thread littered with similar and increasingly strident assertions and snippy, rude responses to plenty of other people, not just me. You seem to be lacking an important chunk of self-awareness, given how sensitive you are of other people's disagreement. As a punk-rock attitude goes, whether intended or not, at the moment its coming across rather more GG Allin than John Lydon.

Can you dial down the attitude a notch?
 

A trope can mean a figure of speach, but your comment was clearly meant in the second sense, i.e. as a cliche and therefore divorced from reality.

This was the second time in a row that you suggested I was repeating some fallacy out of ignorance, while yourself repeating fallacies which are pretty obvious for anyone (including many reading this thread whether they admit it or not) who are familiar with the operational history and aircraft active in the Pacific and China / Burma / India Theaters.

Also, I'm glad you knew a pilot. But you are not the only one who knew WW2 veteran pilots.

It is very well known among aviation historians and enthusiasts (including most people in this forum) that radial engines are generally less vulnerable, in particular to smaller caliber gunfire and shrapnel, than liquid cooled engines.
This was mentioned repeatedly in the IJA and IJN fighter policies and
It was also mentioned by Japanese pilots.

These are facts. Your acceptance of the facts is irrelevant to me

The original context of this was could A6M shoot down Allied fighter aircraft with it's 7.7 mm machine guns, once the cannon ammunition ran out. The answer is yes.

The whole debate about the alleged ineffectiveness of Japanese guns is kind of made moot by looking at the operational history, such as has been recently posted in the thread, which shows that the Japanese aircraft wrought a fair amount of havoc on the American, just as they had earlier against the British.


So you are an expert on the Hineri Komi now? I posted the link to the wiki you are quoting from here, you think I don't know what it says?

I can't say what is going on inside your head, but it appears as if you are being willfully obtuse here, simply because you don't want to accept the obvious, because that would require admitting that you were wrong. Not uncommon in such debate


In that image, the American plane (which looks like a Hellcat) is in white, the Japanese plane (seems to be a Zero) is in Gray. I drew a little cone in red to portray the angle of attack.

As you can see in the image, Hineri Komi allows the Japanese pilots to attack from above and at short range. Almost at a 90 degree angle in the image. This would bypass the armor behind the pilot's seat, and expose both the engine and the pilot to attack from a largely unprotected direction.

This is also what happens when diving down from above to attack, as Japanese fighters often did, and when turning inside an opponent in a horizontal turn, as they also typically did. Japanese pilots were also trained to attack enemy aircraft from behind and below, climbing up at a steep angle, something A6Ms were particularly good at. This also bypasses the armor, if the angle is steep enough.

I originally posted all this to explain to you how it worked, because you seemed not to know a lot about Pacific Theater warfare or the Zero. Not to prove to you something you don't want to believe. I can't do the latter.

When getting in discussions like this, if they get a little heated, I try to keep in mind that I'm not only talking to the person I'm debating in a given exchange. That person may not actually want to know the answer, but may just want to win the argument. Again I don't know I can't read minds. But other people reading the thread however may want to know pertinent data


The reference to the IL2-armor is not even close to being irrelevant to the point. You suggested that the Il-2 having an inline engine was (to you, quite obvious) proof that radial engines were not less vulnerable. I pointed out that they put armor all around the engine on the Il-2. (If they hadn't, they would have been crashing at probably double the already quite high rate they were).

Your question however sounds fairly logical, and for a fact the Russian Su-2 dive bomber had a radial engine, as did dedicated ground attack aircraft of many other nations, such as the German HS 129 did have radial engines, as did say, the AD-Skyraider. I don't know enough about the history of the Il-2 to say why they didn't use their radial engine. So far as I know the Soviets did not in fact have "many excellent radials" as you put it. In fact only one which would have been powerful enough would have been the Shvestov ASh-82 which was used on the La 5 - 11 series of fighters. That may be the reason why they didn't use it.

The Wiki for the IL-2 notes: "A radial engine powered variant of the Il-2 with the Shvetsov ASh-82 engine was proposed in 1942 to remedy projected shortages in the Mikulin inline engines. However, the Shvetsov ASh-82 was also used in the new Lavochkin La-5 fighter which effectively secured all available engines to the Lavochkin bureau."

The decision to use the Mikulin inline may have been for the aerodynamics, i.e. to improve speed, as in-line engines had less drag, generally speaking. It may also not have been the wisest decision as the IL-2 had a very high loss rate. It may also have been because few other Soviet aircraft used the Mikulin. The MiG-3 used the earlier AM-35 but it was discontinued.


I'm not in the least sensitive to disagreement. I am also not going to mince words when somebody says, implies or suggests that I'm making things up or propagating rumors. I find the rumors and tropes about WW2 aircraft irritating. I spend a lot of effort trying to debunk or add nuance to those.

SplitRz said:
As a punk-rock attitude goes, whether intended or not, at the moment its coming across rather more GG Allin than John Lydon.

Can you dial down the attitude a notch?
Click to expand...

I'd say look in the mirror mate. John Lydon was (and still is) fairly sarcastic himself and notoriously snippy with people asking what he thought were stupid questions. Like him or not he had the gift of gab. GG Allin was pretty incoherent and was never particularly sarcastic or glib. I was never a fan.

I can't say what motivates you, I'm sure you are a nice guy and we'd probably get along fine in person. But this post comes across smug and overly self confident in particular given that you are simultaneously making it clear you are a little bit out of your depth on the subject of Pacific Theater warfare. Sometimes it's better when you don't know, just admit it and thank the other person for allowing you to learn something new. That is what I try to do (and have done throughout this thread as in many others here).
 

To me the TBD just looks bad on paper, it looks bad period. It was an early transitional design (introduced 1937) between the biplanes and what was to come during the war.

It handled poorly according to what I've read, had very poor range and performance (made worse when carrying a torpedo because of the way the torpedo was fitted).



The crews also didn't seem to like it.

What made the Swordfish better is that aside from having slightly better range (435 miles with a torpedo for TBD, 522 for the Swordish), is that it was capable of being fitted with radar quite early in the war, and was thus suitible for night and bad weather operations. That extended it's usefulness. The operational history also shows that it sunk a lot of ships.

I think Douglas and Northrop were good design firms and generally made good planes - the SBD was excellent. But when it came to torpedo bombers the TBF / TBM was much, much better IMO. Looked like a bus with wings, not the most graceful design. But had almost twice the range of the TBD, was 70 mph faster, much better armed, and carried the torpedo in an internal bomb bay which is pretty unusual. It also handled better and in spite of the massive size seems to have been easier to handle in carrier ops.

That said I agree just about any torpedo bomber would have suffered at Midway facing all those Zeros with no fighter protection, including the TBF which as you noted was wrecked in their attack. And part of the bad reputation of the TBD was due to the failure of the Mark 13 torpedo.
 
See my previous post. TBD also had a poor range and seemed to handle very badly, and the method of carrying the torpedo slowed it down a great deal.
 

Good points, all. The only advantage the TBF would have over the TBD would be approach speed, which might allow for a better and more-coordinated setup. Most of the TBDs at Midway got shot down before they released their fish, because their approaches were so damned slow.
 

They couldn't drop the torpedo at more than 115 mph from the TBD. i don't know if that was due to the torpedo or the plane. Even when 'glide bombing' they couldn't go faster than 200 mph. Cruise speed was painfully slow 128 mph. For the TBF cruise speed was 215 mph which means it would reach the target much more quickly.

23 minutes for the TBD to fly 50 miles at cruise speed, 14 minutes for the TBF
 
The torpedo dropping speed and height was the same for both aircraft
 
Reluctant Poster said:
The torpedo dropping speed and height was the same for both aircraft
Click to expand...

So I guess that improved over the course of the war? I have looked a this for for Russian, British and Italian torpedoes but not the American.

That is painfully slow, and IIRC the dropping height was very low as well, something like 50 meters?
 

Yep. If a Japanese carrier turned away and put on flank speed, the TBD would close it at a whopping 75 kts. Damned hard to set up a hammer and anvil under those conditions. The TBFs would likely at least have launched torps before being toasted in that battle, and I'm sure some more would have brought their crews home, even if wrecked.

You're right that the torpedo limited the drop envelope. I believe at the time of Midway that envelope was at or below 100' ASL, and no more than 105 mph. The envelope was broadened as the war went on due to improvements in the fins as well as fitting a better detonator.
 
I notice in Europe (and I think the Japanese?) they often added some kind of wooden armature to the torpedo, like a sabot shell which would come off I think, maybe to ease the impact from a higher / faster drop. Later in the war some torpedoes could be dropped at 300 mph and as high as 1500 ft IIRC

A 100 mph torpedo run is not very healthy for the torpedo bomber crews...
 
Not only that, but the torpedo itself was very slow at 33 knots.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

M
The Zero's Maneuverability
18 19 20
Replies
391
Views
19K
Ivan1GFP
I
Sakai Saburo Vs Sugita Sho-ichi
2 3 4
Replies
70
Views
3K
GrauGeist
Supercharging & stuff - losses, improvements, good vs. bad. vs. excellent etc
2 3
Replies
44
Views
3K
Bretoal2
B
A
Best WW2 Seafire vs. best A6M Zero
Replies
9
Views
899
Shortround6
S
Spitfire vs Me-109
Replies
3
Views
1K
PAT303
P
Menu
Log in
Register