Reluctant Poster
Tech Sergeant
- 1,624
- Dec 6, 2006
Me-110 Underrated
- Thread starter Zipper730
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Snautzer01
Honourably banned
- 42,430
- Mar 26, 2007
Probably less imagination in that then in his aviation books.
Long range fighter was a function of mentality - the air services/forces that were against it will never have it.
Japanese A6M Type 11 did almost 7 hours on 180 kt = 1260 nm, or 1450 miles, in 1940, with under 1000 HP under the hood. No need for a 2-engined fighter.
They have at least one in their own country - DB 601A, use it just like Japanese did it.
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 4,002
- Jun 25, 2013
The opening film of the crash was real.
Caiden was a good writer; he just wasn't a good historian.
Bf 109K was a late war fighter. Nobody said that it needs to be a late was design. Same for late-war Spitfires, Yak-9U, P-63, etc.
If the armament of Soviet fighters was nothing to brag about, the less we say about the armament of the post-war fighter (F8F-1), the better. A 2300 HP engine for four HMGs?? Reminds me of many British tanks featuring 12 cylinders, but also a 2pdr as main gun.
Reluctant Poster
Tech Sergeant
- 1,624
- Dec 6, 2006
Shortround6
Major General
wuzak
Captain
The 21 had new wings and many other revisions, so much so that a new name was considered.
But earlier Griffon Spitfires didn't change that much compared to their Merlin counterparts.
The Griffon Spits are very different birds from the original Spitfire. Even between say the Spit I and the Spit IX or VIII, the changes are substantial. It's a lot of little things, but I would say when you add up all the changes, it's quite significant. Certainly the performance and capabilities changed enormously between a Spit I and a Spit VIII.
But there is some subjectivity in that, so feel free to look at it however you like. It doesn't change the overall point.
Shortround6
Major General
No, you left out ONE long range fighter.
and listed three bombers.
Putting a battery of forward firing guns in a bomber can give you "fighter" in name. But said "fighter" has some rather severe limits.
The Martin Maryland was rated at 6 "G"s Ultimate load factor. or about 4 "G"s in service. Obviously you don't want to try dog fighting sing seat fighters.
BTW listing ranges without either speed or altitude is near useless.
You are also listing a few bombers in here. Who cares if the Battle could fly 1000 miles? It isn't a fighter by any stretch of the imagination.
A lot of American fighters at the beginning of the war had long "book" or "yard stick" ranges. Navy planes, like the Buffalo had some truly astonishing ranges but were useless in Europe, much like the ranges the A6M2 and Ki 43 had.
The P-40B is listed as having a optimum "range" of 1010 miles at 202mph at 15,000ft and a "practical" range of 805miles at the same speed and altitude. However both of these "ranges" were obtained by calculation and not flight testing and both calculations were made by magically levitating the plane to 15,000ft with a warmed up engine.
Useful perhaps for comparing the design to another design that calculated the range the same way but obviously not a real range/radius that could be used in combat.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/P-40B_Official_Performance_Summary.jpg
The PE-3 had range, after that things go downhill.
and please quit wasting our time with comparisons like this.
"Compare a Mirage III or MiG 21 to an F-4 or an F-16 to an F-111"
In the case of the F-16 and F-111 they first flew 10 years apart and used engines and avionics from different generations.
Which versions of the other 3 and again, what do you want the fighters to do? The Mirage and Mig 21 don't operate off carriers and until many years after they were designed and they could be equipped with avionics several generations newer than what they first carried they were pretty much daylight only fighters. You also needed multiple Miriages or Mig 21s to carry the same missile load as most F-4s.
comparing apples to watermelons and aircraft from different generations does not prove your argument.
You are grasping at straws. Ki-45 was a fighter. We all know Mosquito was a fighter among it's many other roles, and not just at night either. The Potez 630 was a heavy fighter which was also used as a bomber. The Maryland was basically a bomber, and never really developed as dedicated fighter but like many high performance bombers it was used as a fighter on more than one occasion, there was even an Ace who flew one. I included it as an example because obviously if it had been given uprated engines and a few heavy guns (and stripped out some of the bomber bits like one of the crewmen) it could have been a fighter. You know as well as I do that many of these aircraft were used in both bomber and fighter roles as well as for other purposes. And if the single-engined Fairey Battle could fly 1,000 miles with an early mark Merlin engine, so could a fighter with the same powerplant.
More to the point, in bringing up that list, I was answering a very specific question: who could make a fighter that could fly 1,000 miles ("with what engine") in 1939/40. I pointed out multiple fighters. You are trying to pick at a couple from the list and spin it into a completely different context - i.e. quality. This is a typical tactic in these debates (why it is even a debate I really have no idea, because I know you know better).
And no, I'm sorry, but I know for a fact that you are incorrect when you claim that fighters couldn't safely fly at relatively low cruise speeds over land that they did over sea. You have have tried to bring that up before. But it was done for years in the Western Desert, in China and Burma, and in Russia too. Only the cripplingly slow aircraft like the Blenheim which apparently had a cruise speed around 100 mph were called into question over cruise speed. The typical tactic was to use the most economical speed until they got close, and then speed up when they were close to the target area, but in the MTO in 1940, 41 and 42, and even into 1943 they flew slow during bomber escort. Just like Bf 109s escorting Stukas into Britain.
I specifically didn't include any aircraft which I knew had an actual range of substantially less than 1000 miles (like the Tomahawk).
And actually homeboy, the F-111 was a ten year earlier design (1964 vs. 1974) but F-111s and F-16s flew operationally at the same time. I saw them both flying when I was in the service at Ramstein airbase in Frankfurt in 1985. They used F-111s to bomb Libya the same year. The contrast in size was quite startling, that is what made me think of it. The F-111 had to take off on afterburner. It was impressive but also conveyed the impression that something wasn't quite right. The F-16 by comparison was effortless. I can't believe they designed something that beautiful in the 70's.
Mirage III or MiG 21 were short ranged interceptors. The F4 Phantom was a heavy fighter. That was my point. Kind of like comparing a P-38 with a Bf 109. The F4 may have had more capabilities in some respects and carried more ordinance, but a MiG 21 was no push over for F4 pilots, as we well know, or for that matter an archaic MiG 17 or 19. (It didn't help that a lot of the ordinance on the early F4s didn't work all that well...)
More to the point, in bringing up that list, I was answering a very specific question: who could make a fighter that could fly 1,000 miles ("with what engine") in 1939/40. I pointed out multiple fighters. You are trying to pick at a couple from the list and spin it into a completely different context - i.e. quality. This is a typical tactic in these debates (why it is even a debate I really have no idea, because I know you know better).
And no, I'm sorry, but I know for a fact that you are incorrect when you claim that fighters couldn't safely fly at relatively low cruise speeds over land that they did over sea. You have have tried to bring that up before. But it was done for years in the Western Desert, in China and Burma, and in Russia too. Only the cripplingly slow aircraft like the Blenheim which apparently had a cruise speed around 100 mph were called into question over cruise speed. The typical tactic was to use the most economical speed until they got close, and then speed up when they were close to the target area, but in the MTO in 1940, 41 and 42, and even into 1943 they flew slow during bomber escort. Just like Bf 109s escorting Stukas into Britain.
I specifically didn't include any aircraft which I knew had an actual range of substantially less than 1000 miles (like the Tomahawk).
And actually homeboy, the F-111 was a ten year earlier design (1964 vs. 1974) but F-111s and F-16s flew operationally at the same time. I saw them both flying when I was in the service at Ramstein airbase in Frankfurt in 1985. They used F-111s to bomb Libya the same year. The contrast in size was quite startling, that is what made me think of it. The F-111 had to take off on afterburner. It was impressive but also conveyed the impression that something wasn't quite right. The F-16 by comparison was effortless. I can't believe they designed something that beautiful in the 70's.
Mirage III or MiG 21 were short ranged interceptors. The F4 Phantom was a heavy fighter. That was my point. Kind of like comparing a P-38 with a Bf 109. The F4 may have had more capabilities in some respects and carried more ordinance, but a MiG 21 was no push over for F4 pilots, as we well know, or for that matter an archaic MiG 17 or 19. (It didn't help that a lot of the ordinance on the early F4s didn't work all that well...)
Last edited:
Kevin J
Banned
I think our colleague who introduced the Fairey Battle into the discussion should have written Fairey Fulmar. IIRC the Miles M20 had a 1200 mile range. So the Brits did have them.
Glider
Captain
I admit the thought of the Battle as a fighter, did bring a smile to my face.
Fulmars range isn't long enough. But basically something like a Fulmar.
wuzak
Captain
The Mk IX was, essentially, a Mk V with a 2 stage Merlin.
The Mk XII was, essentially, a Mk V with a Griffon.
The Mk V was, essentially a Mk I or II with a Merlin 45.
The Spitfire XIV was, essentially, a Mk VIII with a Griffon.
The Mk VIII (and VII) were based largely on the Mk III, which was designed to use the Merlin XX.
The wings were very much the same between all of them. There was some changes to way some parts were made, and modifications to the gun bays. An example is the E-wing - designed for 4 x 20mm or 2 x 20mm and 2 x 0.50" the outer .303" bays could no longer be used. But they remained within the structure.
The fuselage remained the same, at least behind the firewall. There was no stretching of the fuselage, like some other types. Even the tail fin was the same, though the rudder chord increased in size.
I should hope that later marks of the design had more performance and capability. Otherwise the development effort was wasted.
And I should expect that all aircraft produced for a period of time would have a myriad of improvements.
In US production there were many changes within a variant.
Take the P-38J
P-38J-1-LO - service test
P-83J-5-LO - added 55 USG leading edge fuel tanks
P-38J-10-LO - changed the windscreen, now incorporating the armoured glass
P-38J-15-LO - revised electrical system
P-38J-20-LO - modified turbo regulators
P-38J-25-LO - electrically operated dive brakes and boosted ailerons
Lockheed P-38J Lightning
Or the P-40N
P-40N-1-CU - first N production block. Lighter construction than predecessors.
P-40N-5-CU - modified cockpit canopy
P-40N-6-CU - N-5 fitted with reconnaissance cameras in the field
P-40N-10-CU - winterized, 4 gun versions
P-40N-15-CU - relocated battery, new landing lights, 6 guns and larger capacity wing tanks
P-40N-20-CU - new engine variant, with automatic engine control unit
P-40N-25-CU - revised instrument panel and non-metal self-sealing fuel tanks
P-40N-30-CU - electrical system revisions
P-40N-35-CU - changes in the carburetor, the instruments, the lighting, the lubrication system, and featured updated electrical systems, and a new radio and ADF equipment.
P-40N-40-CU - new engine variant, metal covered ailerons, improved self-sealing fuel tanks, automatic propeller control, new radio and oxygen equipment, and flame-damping exhausts
The block system wasn't used for early models, being introduced part way through P-40F production. The P-40F-5 was the block that introduced the longer rear fuselage, which was used on all subsequent models.
Curtiss P-40N Warhawk
Curtiss P-40F Warhawk
So, quite a few changes in one variant.
In terms of an aviation historian he was more there for entertainment but compared to the general milieu of historians he was about average for the time.
He did a good job of humanising Saburo Saki when distrust and anger was still high. For that I salute him.
Peter Gunn
Master Sergeant
OK, I'll bite. How?Fighter pilots are a bunch of whiners!
Ask me how I know...
Cheers,
Biff
Can you please cite your sources.
Milos Vestsik's books on La-5 and La-7 cites the ammo count as Shortround6 said.
(Gordon/Khazanov - books unfortunately are not as bolt and nuts thing)
