Qualities that made for a great aircraft that don't show up in performance stats.

wuzak · Dec 4, 2018

DarrenW said:
Point well taken. I believe that the same could be said of the Spitfire during the BoB. The Hurricane had more than an adequate performance to take on anything the Luftwaffe could throw at it, and with the use of RADAR it could always be expected to be in the right place at the right time. Add in the huge tactical blunders made by the German High Command along with the superiority of the average British pilot and there's no reason to ever imagine any other possible outcome of the battle.

The Hurricane was out-classed by the Bf 109 in the BoB.

British pilots were not superior to German pilots in the BoB. British pilots didn't have much training or experience at the time, while many (most?) of the Luftwaffe's pilots had combat experience - in the battle for France, Belgium, etc, in the invasion of Poland and some had experience from the Spanish Civil War.

Tactically the British had some advantages - such as radar warning, and the fact that pilots that bailed out and survived landed on home soil. But they also employed some questionable tactics, such as the "big wing", which took so long to form up that when they were able to engage, the enemy had already dropped their bombs and headed for home.

GrauGeist · Dec 4, 2018

The 343rd Air Group was assigned the A6M5a Model 52, N1K1-J Type 11, N1K2-J Type 21 and the C6N1.

GregP · Dec 4, 2018

Hi ExBE02Drvr. Yes, I know. The FM-1 still had a Pratt and the FM-2 went to a Wright. It's still a Wildcat.

The P-51A went from Allison to Merlin and they don't break out the P-51A kills from P-51D kills. DC-3s went back and forth between Pratt and Wright and nobody mentions it. The Corsair went from R-2800 to R-4360, but nobody seems to want to reclassify it as something other than a Corsair. The later Spitfires are still thought of as Spitfires even though they sport a Griffon instead of a Merlin, and it turns the other way to boot. The Typhoon went between engines but is still a Typhoon.

So, I don't see the Wildcat as something extra-special that needs to be re-identified because of a minor engine change and a whopping 250 or so extra horsepower. But, hey, that's just me. Your opinion may vary, and that's OK. Cheers.

GrauGeist · Dec 4, 2018

Don't forget the F4U - FG-1

Ivan1GFP · Dec 4, 2018

wuzak said:
The Hurricane was out-classed by the Bf 109 in the BoB.

British pilots were not superior to German pilots in the BoB. British pilots didn't have much training or experience at the time, while many (most?) of the Luftwaffe's pilots had combat experience - in the battle for France, Belgium, etc, in the invasion of Poland and some had experience from the Spanish Civil War.

Tactically the British had some advantages - such as radar warning, and the fact that pilots that bailed out and survived landed on home soil. But they also employed some questionable tactics, such as the "big wing", which took so long to form up that when they were able to engage, the enemy had already dropped their bombs and headed for home.

Hello Wuzak,
The other important thing to note is that even with Hurricanes AND Spitfires, it can be argued that the British never had a particularly favourable exchange rate versus the Germans during the BoB. There were the kills that were reported for public consumption but those were quite inflated.

GregP said:
Hi ExBE02Drvr. Yes, I know. The FM-1 still had a Pratt and the FM-2 went to a Wright. It's still a Wildcat.

The P-51A went from Allison to Merlin and they don't break out the P-51A kills from P-51D kills. DC-3s went back and forth between Pratt and Wright and nobody mentions it. The Corsair went from R-2800 to R-4360, but nobody seems to want to reclassify it as something other than a Corsair. The later Spitfires are still thought of as Spitfires even though they sport a Griffon instead of a Merlin, and it turns the other way to boot. The Typhoon went between engines but is still a Typhoon.

So, I don't see the Wildcat as something extra-special that needs to be re-identified because of a minor engine change and a whopping 250 or so extra horsepower. But, hey, that's just me. Your opinion may vary, and that's OK. Cheers.

Hello GregP,
While I believe you are technically correct, I believe the point was really that the Wildcat was no longer a front line fighter by the time the FM-2 came around. Its mission had changed and even if it were the same aircraft, it was operating in a much less dangerous environment.
I see this as similar to a comparison of the Short Stirling during the time it served as a night bomber to its later role as a glider tug and transport. It may be the same aircraft, but it isn't flying in the same environment or against the same opposition.

- Ivan.

swampyankee · Dec 5, 2018

Production F4U Corsairs never used the R-4360; that engine was used by the Goodyear F2G, was which never entered service as only about a dozen were built.

DarrenW · Dec 5, 2018

wuzak said:
The Hurricane was out-classed by the Bf 109 in the BoB.

British pilots were not superior to German pilots in the BoB. British pilots didn't have much training or experience at the time, while many (most?) of the Luftwaffe's pilots had combat experience - in the battle for France, Belgium, etc, in the invasion of Poland and some had experience from the Spanish Civil War.

Tactically the British had some advantages - such as radar warning, and the fact that pilots that bailed out and survived landed on home soil. But they also employed some questionable tactics, such as the "big wing", which took so long to form up that when they were able to engage, the enemy had already dropped their bombs and headed for home.

Sorry wuzak now it's my turn to apologize. I was baiting you into a discussion about the BoB because I knew it would trigger an emotional response, and it did. My post had an air of sarcasm to it that obviously went un-noticed. I promise to never do that to you again. And while I agree with everything that you stated above, we will just have to continue to agree to disagree concerning the merits of the F6F and it's value to the naval air war in the Pacific.

Peace.

DarrenW · Dec 5, 2018

Ivan1GFP said:
that Hellcats never suffered any losses to the N1K

Well "officially" they didn't.

Ivan1GFP said:
You are actually responding to an argument that I did not make.

That is true, you just seemed to be watching XBe02DrVr's back concerning the drag issue so I was just responding to the both of you in kind.

Ivan1GFP said:
By my Mark I Mod 0 Eyeball, the A6M5 is a bit more aerodynamic than the A6M2

I'll have to closely examine what you presented in your post and get back to you on this one.

DarrenW · Dec 5, 2018

Ivan1GFP said:
While I believe you are technically correct, I believe the point was really that the Wildcat was no longer a front line fighter by the time the FM-2 came around.

How an aircraft is utilized has nothing to do with it's official designation. If the U.S. Navy referred to it as a Wildcat then this implies that it was still part of the original Wildcat family. The only difference was that the General Motors Corporation was building them under license, due primarily to Grumman's total involvement in the manufacture of Hellcats. I really don't see what the issue is here.

Ivan1GFP · Dec 5, 2018

DarrenW said:
How an aircraft is utilized has nothing to do with it's official designation. If the U.S. Navy referred to it as a Wildcat then this implies that it was still part of the original Wildcat family. The only difference was that the General Motors Corporation was building them under license, due primarily to Grumman's total involvement in the manufacture of Hellcats. I really don't see what the issue is here.

Hello DarrenW,
I believe you are missing the point that the two gentlemen were arguing about as I did initially.
GregP was counting FM-2 statistics along with those for the earlier Wildcats while XBe02Drvr believed that the statistics should be separated because the FM-2 was flying a distinctly different mission. I believe both arguments have their merits but from a meaningful statistics point of view, I would have to agree with XBe02Drvr. I don't think the argument was that the F4F-8 / FM-2 was not a Wildcat.

- Ivan.

fliger747 · Dec 5, 2018

10 F2G model Corsairs were produced, five in the land version and five sea going aircraft. Additionally an experimental test F4U-1 Corsair was equipped with the 4360 and variously a counter rotating prop. One of the surviving F2G aircraft is displayed at the Museum of Flight in Seattle.

GregP · Dec 6, 2018

Hi SwampYankee. Actually, they made 10. Considering how few were built, it is amazing to me the number that survived. At least one is still flying ... the red one. Bob Odegaard was killed in the blue one. It is an occasional visitor at the Planes of Fame.

DarrenW · Dec 6, 2018

Ivan1GFP said:
Hello DarrenW,
I believe you are missing the point that the two gentlemen were arguing about as I did initially.
GregP was counting FM-2 statistics along with those for the earlier Wildcats while XBe02Drvr believed that the statistics should be separated because the FM-2 was flying a distinctly different mission. I believe both arguments have their merits but from a meaningful statistics point of view, I would have to agree with XBe02Drvr. I don't think the argument was that the F4F-8 / FM-2 was not a Wildcat.

- Ivan.

Thanks for the clarification Ivan. I think this separation of the two as "different" aircraft types began with the way the statistical analysis is layed out in NACS. While the various designations of the Corsair and Avenger manufactured by the different companies can be found statistically grouped together there, the F4F and FM-2 were separated into two distinct categories. This was probably due to the fact that the F4F and FM-2 were in service at different periods of the war and therefore did not fly missions simultaneously (unlike different manufactured Corsair and Avenger). For example, in 1944 and 1945 only the FM-2 is listed as flying operations from either carriers or land bases, as the F4F was no longer in service. If no sorties were flown by the F4F version, it would have been meaningless to list them together because no action reports would have included that particular designation. Conversely, there were no FM-2s listed in action reports before 1944, so only the F4F designation was used up to that point.

Therefore both designations of the Wildcat received their own unique statistics, rather than being lumped together like the other types. If they both operated from carriers or from land bases at the same period of the war, we would most likely have seen them statistically grouped together in the analysis, just like the other types.

I guess when we are talking about which aircraft type did what, people need to be clear if they are talking about it's designation or the nickname that it was given. I personally think that grouping aircraft together by their original or parent airframe type is the best way to understand a particular design's overall military value (and not by the various modifications that came along during it's existence). The nickname of the aircraft would therefore be the best way to achieve this goal. But hey, that's just me and everyone deserves to have an opinion.

Just my take on things.

Ivan1GFP · Dec 6, 2018

Hello DarrenW,
I am not really disagreeing with you, but do the statistics split out the FM-1 from the F4F or distinguish between F4F-3, F4F-3A and F4F-4?
Production of the FM-1 started off pretty early and was basically a Wildcat with F4F-3/3A armament but otherwise configured as the F4F-4 for wing folding and other equipment.

The point I am wondering about is whether the FM-1 statistics would be counted with the F4F or with the FM-2.
Its manufacturer is obviously General Motors, but its configuration and typical missions are identical to other F4F types.

- Ivan.

DarrenW · Dec 6, 2018

Ivan1GFP said:
The point I am wondering about is whether the FM-1 statistics would be counted with the F4F or with the FM-2.

Most of the discussion here has been about the FM-2 so I failed to make clear that the actual designation listed in the NACS was "FM" and this most likely included both the -1 and -2 models.

DarrenW · Dec 6, 2018

DarrenW said:
I'll have to closely examine what you presented in your post and get back to you on this one.

Hi Ivan,
Rather than hijack this awesome thread I decided to start a new one in order to further discuss the drag qualities of the Zero fighter:

Aerodynamic Drag Properties of the A6M

See you there....

DarrenW · Dec 7, 2018

fliger747 said:
The streamlining between the Zeke and the Hellcat and several other mentioned aircraft isn't as important as the drag associated with wing loading. The light wing loading had penalties in maximum speed, the Zeke was by definition an "angles" fighter.

Hi Fliger747, could you expound on this further? It's very intriguing to me....

Ivan1GFP · Dec 7, 2018

fliger747 said:
The streamlining between the Zeke and the Hellcat and several other mentioned aircraft isn't as important as the drag associated with wing loading. The light wing loading had penalties in maximum speed, the Zeke was by definition an "angles" fighter.

Hello Fliger747,
What kind of penalties in maximum speed does a light wing loading have?
Are you suggesting that the same aircraft carrying more weight would be faster?
I would have thought that something like the Lavochkin La-5FN or the FW 190 or Yak-3 was a better example of an "angles" fighter.

- Ivan.

pbehn · Dec 7, 2018

Ivan1GFP said:
Hello Fliger747,
What kind of penalties in maximum speed does a light wing loading have?
Are you suggesting that the same aircraft carrying more weight would be faster?
I would have thought that something like the Lavochkin La-5FN or the FW 190 or Yak-3 was a better example of an "angles" fighter.

- Ivan.

I didn't see it as carrying more weight but having less wing than needed, meaning less wing would do.

Ivan1GFP · Dec 7, 2018

pbehn said:
I didn't see it as carrying more weight but having MORE wing than needed, meaning less wing would do.

Hello PBehn,
With that minor correction, I agree with you completely, but that is really stating that a smaller wing has less drag and not that a lighter wing loading has a penalty. THAT is why I asked what I did.
If you think an aircraft has too much wing area, you cut the size of the wing.
If you think the aircraft has too little wing loading, you add some weight to the aircraft.
I figure one tries to keep all the other factors the same.

- Ivan.

Qualities that made for a great aircraft that don't show up in performance stats.

Captain

Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung

Major

Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung

Tech Sergeant

Chief Master Sergeant

Staff Sergeant

Staff Sergeant

Staff Sergeant

Tech Sergeant

Senior Airman

Major

Staff Sergeant

Tech Sergeant

Staff Sergeant

Staff Sergeant

Staff Sergeant

Tech Sergeant

Colonel

Tech Sergeant

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads