Most ignored combat aircraft of ww2

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

Glider,

Today test pilots who fly fighters also come from combat oriented fighter background. Their time away from combat flying / training puts them at, in my opine, a serious disadvantage. They get little to no combat training, and atrophy on tactics as well as currency. To stay good you need to stay proficient. While Brown did fly occasional combat sorties I would doubt his proficiency was at the level of someone doing it day in and day out. I would have been embarrassed if I couldn't beat a test pilot in identical jets. Six weeks off makes a difference. How about a year off, or more.

All my opine based on what I've seen.

Cheers,
Biff

Reminds me another great and well known in USSR/post USSR test pilot Mark Gallay. 124 aircraft, participator of early space program. Over a dozen of books.
He was shortly in combat in 1941 and claimed Do-215 in one of night interceptions.
Reading his books (well written, by the way) I was quite often surprised by his evaluations of combat machines. His opinion about P-47 was summarised as "Good airplane but not a fighter".
 
Ivan and Biff:
Excellent!! Truly exciting to know our fellow members have not only read the book but are intimately familiar with some of the passages written about Boyd and his Energy-Maneuverability Theory. I was going to quote all that stuff, but I thought it might be a bit overwhelming for starters and supposedly a response to the test pilot versus combat pilot. Wow!! Is this site great or what?

The USMAC were the only branch to honor Boyd's funeral.

Insofar as the Pentagon, Boyd was a civilian working almost 20/7 at the expense of his wife and family. Because he was a civilian, he could (and often did) hang up on generals and anyone else whom he felt wasn't worth his time. As a civilian he was not beholden to military protocols and often regarded them as "nuisance." Boyd was especially known for his "Briefings" which stretched out 6-8- hours and sometimes more than one day. When told to compress his Briefs down to 2 hours or less, he would yell on the phone: "Well, how about NO brief?" and hang up. I especially enjoyed the passages where Boyd would seek out any unfortunate general or colonel walking down the hallways within the Pentagon, corner them and constantly poke into their chest and, while yelling at them about how stupid their ideas were, spittle leftover foods into their faces, while at the same time his cigar would drop ashes all over their shoes. I would've paid admission just to see that.

I must have read and reread that book at least three or four times. Enjoyed every minute of it.

Responding to Boyd being intimate with the F-100, I totally agree with Ivan that his ideas and approach to rough handling the Sabre was not for the faint of heart and possibly dangerous to the uninitiated. However, I also feel that a pilot should absolutely know his limits and the limits of his plane if he's to survive in a combat scenario that lasts only seconds, with split seconds being the difference between survival and death. Boyd was a great advocate of utilizing that Hun to its limits.

With the advent of drones now being a major factor into the battle scene, I wonder what Boyd's thoughts would be.
 
Eeeek, Jets again!



I overheard a fellow at the Udvar Hazy NASM who suggested to his prospective son-in-law that he should read this book.
I requested a copy from my local public library and it does make pretty good reading as do some of Col. Boyd's actual writings.
As a comment here, I believe a little more detail about Col. Boyd might be useful here.
John Boyd was THE F-100 Driver. He probably knew more about the flight characteristics about that particular aeroplane than anyone else INCLUDING the test pilots.
His tactic when fighting with the F-100 was to pull up into a very high AoA and "Flat Plate" the aeroplane. The drag and deceleration was tremendous and the pursuing aircraft would overshoot quickly. Then he would go back to normal flight attitude and shoot the fellow that was now in front of him.
Unless you are very familiar with the peculiar instability of the F-100 at high AoA, this is a very dangerous thing to do.
More on this in a bit....



Using Rudder instead of Ailerons for lateral control at low speed is actually the correct approach as I understand it.
Using Ailerons may stall the wing that you are attempting to raise.
As mentioned earlier, the F-100 had serious directional stability issues at high AoA. Part of this was corrected from the prototypes by increasing the size of the Fin/Rudder, but not before another rather famous NAA test pilot, George Welch got killed while flying it. The situation was never entirely corrected and the "Sabre Dance" is a great illustration of that high AoA directional control issue coupled with being behind the power curve.



The book about Col. Boyd was not very complimentary on Schwarzkopf at all. I believe you are misinterpreting the conclusion.
Yes, the Gulf War was fought using the principles and strategies of Col. Boyd, but the original strategy of Schwarzkopf was "Hey diddle diddle, right up the middle" (strength against strength) which is the complete opposite approach.
The now standard "Energy - Maneuverability Theory" was apparently the creation of Col. Boyd and his group that called themselves "The Fighter Mafia". The interesting thing here was that he was certain that this theory did not completely capture the differences between aircraft and was working on a follow-on theory toward the end of his life.
The concept of "OODA Loop" (Observe, Orient, Decide, Act) and the idea that whoever can execute this cycle faster will have the advantage can also be credited to this fellow.

- Ivan.

Ivan,

I'm very familiar with the OODA loop.

Cheers,
Biff
 
the Vickers Wellesley

Ah, the Wellesley; I had a Matchbox model of that aeroplane. How about the Vickers Vildebeest (he says, digging deeper to find ever more obscure British aeroplanes used briefly during the war...)!

Vickers Vildebeest - Wikipedia

The Royal New Zealand Air Force at the outbreak of WW2 in 1939 had no modern combat aircraft. It was populated by Hawker Hinds and Vildebeests and Vincents, with Blackburn Baffins also, although an order of Vickers Wellingtons was undergoing completion in the UK. These were never delivered to New Zealand and remained to equip 75 Squadron, which became the first Commonwealth squadron with the addition of two letters (NZ).

Imperial Airways Short 'C' Class flying boats were used for long range maritime patrol after German surface raiders sank shipping in the South Pacific.
 
Nuuu:
I agree, Vickers Vildebeest gets my vote too. I've seen a photo of an R/C sized model published in a British modeling publication of that biplane. The modeler did an outstanding job on super detailing the model to very high standards.

I'd like to know where/how he managed to obtain such detailed documentation to be able to build such a model.

Skye
 
The japanese army light support bomber Ki-51 (2,300 made) is virtually unmentioned in western books on WW2, a kind of unique liason & light attack plane developed from war experience in China, but very conventional design.

latest?cb=20131230225039.jpg


Its probably negelcted due to it looking like the better known navy's D3A Val dive bomber.
 
The japanese army light support bomber Ki-51 (2,300 made) is virtually unmentioned in western books on WW2, a kind of unique liason & light attack plane developed from war experience in China, but very conventional design.

View attachment 513890

Its probably negelcted due to it looking like the better known navy's D3A Val dive bomber.
That's a very good pick. I've never read a word about it in any book and with over 2000 made it's not like it was some experimental type that never really got going.
 
Interesting. This list keep growing! I have to agree with "M." I've never heard of that Japanese aircraft either, and with over 2,000 made, I have to wonder how they were passed over in most books on WW2 aircraft or even those that specialized in Japanese aircraft.
 
they fall into a grey zone. Built in America but not flown by Americans the US had little interest in them. Flown by the Commonwealth but not built by them there was little reason to publicize them.
 
The Sonia (KI-51) gets it's share of press, but not being a fighter, tends to get overlooked unless a person is specifically looking at the CBI theater, where the bulk of it's operations happened.

What's nearly absent from the books, however, is the KI-102 - a latewar twin engined heavy fighter.
That's another great pick. I've never read a word about it.( Heading for Wikipedia now)
 
Some Fokker types to look up, would be the T.VIII, G.I, D.XXI and the C.X
Cool thanks. I love learning about new stuff of which I was previously un-aware. I was just reading about that ki-102 and it sounds like it would have been a formidable weapon with that guided air to surface misile they had plans to couple it with. Fortunately they chose to hold it in reserve for what they thought would be the comming invasion of the home islands
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back