michael rauls
Tech Sergeant
- 1,679
- Jul 15, 2016
Very interesting. Personally I enjoy reading pilots interviews and accouts more than probably anything else.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Very interesting. Personally I enjoy reading pilots interviews and accouts more than probably anything else.A little bit more from that interview:
"Can you talk to us about radio discipline? Normally they write that radio discipline was bad—too much chatter over the radio.
I would not say that. Of course, it happened, along with cursing. But they said only what was necessary: course such-and-such, altitude so-and-so. You responded with "Roger!" And you shut up. Then, sometimes you gave warnings: "Look, over there, Fokker," or "Someone is coming at your back."
How did you converse? By call sign, by nickname, by last name?
There was a call sign. Mine was "21."
By your aircraft number, or what?
In accordance with the squadron number. Arkadiy Morozov was "20," and I—the deputy—was "21." More than that I don't remember. But those were our call signs."
and
"Did the work on Lend-lease equipment influence the tactics and organization of the equipment's combat employment?
The combat employment was just the same as for our own aircraft. Well, the radio equipment was better, and as I have already told you, the radio saved us. The radio alone helped us to avoid many losses. You could talk through it just the same as you and I are talking here now. And the Kittyhawk had excellent visibility. One had only to turn his neck."
Hello Schweik,
I believe you are underestimating the sheer amount of effort required to develop an aircraft engine.
Consider the case of the Packard Merlin. They STARTED with a proven design with proven performance which the Soviets did not have. They had all the drawings supplied to them by Rolls Royce and working examples of the Merlin XX and it still took them about a year to get things straight. Remember that this was before the days of computers, calculators and photocopying.
I am very surprised you are saying this considering our recent discussion about the P-40K. The Allison had no trouble making the power and had excellent durability and flexibility. It just didn't have the supercharger for really good altitude performance. If you look at what these engines are capable of when run to their limits, you will find that the Allison in very high power applications seems to be superior in durability to the Merlin.
Whether airborne communications helps depends a lot on whether the pilots are trained to fight as a team. It also helps when someone beyond visual range has information which significantly affects the tactical situation.
Imagine a radio message coming in that says: "Stop chasing the Torpedo Planes! There is an incoming raid at high altitude that is 20 miles out."
How do you coordinate with your wingman or the rest of your squadron in the middle of a dogfight?
You need to remember that Packard was not taking the Merlin as a baseline and manufacturing new models of engines. They were adapting existing engine designs and changes had to be shared and approved by Rolls Royce. THAT was the contract. They did make some adaptations but that was mostly in terms of measuring standards (Decimal versus Fractions of an inch). Packard wasn't even allowed to use SAE thread standards and had to stick with Whitworth threads and ended up having to make their own screws and bolts in house because they could not buy them on this side of the pond.
Hello Dan Fahey,
The P-40Q was better than earlier P-40s but it still didn't have what was wanted and that was Speed.
It was still about 25-30 MPH slower than the P-51 that was already in production.
The P-63 didn't have a lot of range and still wasn't particularly fast by late war standards.
Is there any reason to believe that the P-63 was superior to a P-47 for ground attack?
What was its ability to carry ordnance?
- Ivan.
I've read widely differing opinions as to which was better in terms of reliability in the MTO, Merlin or Allison, but I don't think Allisons were perfect. For one thing the highest amount of horsepower they ever delivered in an actual deployed combat aircraft was roughly 1,600 hp in the V-1710-111/113 of the P-38, at 1,600 hp (WEP) using a turbo. Second best is probably the 1,550 / 1580 hp delivered by the P-40K at low altitude, again at WEP. That is good but not great. Most deployed engines were producing more like 1,200-1,300 hp at military power and ~ 1,400 for WEP. Yes they could be overboosted but that did not always correlate with a long engine life or great reliability.
Ultimately the supercharger is part of the whole engine package. Allison never developed good high altitude versions of their engines, except with the turbo and that ended up being extremely temperamental and fraught implementation, delaying the realization of the potential of the P-38 by probably at least a year. Ultimately for that reason especially I would judge it as adequate and not exceptional.
You yourself brought this up as a major problem for the Japanese (early on) which is why it's baffling that you seem to argue the opposite here.
Actually you are overstating the case here a bit, Packard made a lot of changes for example changing the coatings of the bearings to use indium. It's true they didn't make their own variants of RR engines but as you note, just to produce good quality merlins required a pretty high state of organization, the only thing preventing them from making their own variants was the contract I believe.
So nothing on the Italian TO&E? Did I waste my time transcribing all that?
The P-40 was getting faster throughout its history.
You missed that I mentioned the Bubble Canopy would have been a big help..for SA - Situation Awareness
Still Curtis built them without the better engine which would have given it a wider improved flight profile.
Fact that the Mustang was faster is not relevant as most of that speed was at high altitude.
The new engine would have made the P-40 25-30 mph faster and climb better at all altitudes.
The P-40 was a better dog fighter at altitudes under 20 k where most of the fighting took place.
Interesting the Russians and Italians also fought at the lower altitudes where most of the targets were.
On the P-63 lots of information on French use in Africa and Vietnam. Look it up!
Had better range than the P47's, more nimble and used unimproved fields.
It was better than the F6F, F8F and the few Corsairs given to them.
The French used the left over Japanese planes like the Ki-43 and remaining bombers.
Irrelevant argument. A stable full of the best aircraft in the world (Spits? Mustangs? Mosquitos? Skyraiders??) wouldn't have kept Indo-China and Algeria in the empire. Their problems ran far deeper than the quality of their air weapons.Considering that the French lost their colonies in both places you mentioned, that is hardly a recommendation for the quality of their equipment.
Actually there was no need to comment because the numbers you were listing were not really in disagreement with the numbers I had already seen. Average monthly availability in North Africa for 1942 was about 30-70 Folgores.
The only number that seems to be in dispute is the percentage of sorties flown by Folgore.
- Ivan.
I've always thought the B-26 was an interesting case. A lot of people like it but the service record is decidedly mixed.
Baltimore
The far more well known model 179, known as the "Marauder" was also meant to be fast, but requirements for heavier armament and bomb load resulted in a rather portly aircraft with a large compliment of heavy machine guns for defense. But as we all know it ended up relatively slow and (particularly in it's first short-winged incarnation) difficult in terms of handling, with a high wing loading and a relatively poor power to mass ratio.
Top speed according to Janes in spite of powerful R-2800 engines just 287 mph and a ceiling of 21,000 ft.
It did carry a 4,000 lb load though. But to what use?
Looks like the B-26 suffered from mission creep: forward firing MG's for low level attacks, bombardier's nose and ventral guns for level bombing, bomb bay capable of holding a torpedo - it could have benefited from somebody deciding what mission it was meant for and outfitting it just for that - or shipping multiple armament kits, as was done with the B-25.
The story of aircraft designs all over the world is one of new engines not panning out. Every country (even England) had promising aircraft designs which never went anywhere because engines didn't pan out. Every country had promising engine designs they struggled with. Allison ultimately made 'adequate' engines for American needs, and they were probably better overall than most of the M-105 series, but they were hardly spectacular compared to say a Rolls Royce Merlin or DB.601 and they didn't produce spectacular power let alone high altitude performance (unless you connected them to a G.E. turbo).
I think if you go through the war year by year, month by month from 1942, the Soviets had fighters that could, as designed, contend with the German fighters of that particular moment on a relatively equal basis (at the altitude and in the conditions of the front). A properly made, well piloted Yak-1 could cope with a Bf 109E. A Yak-1B or Yak-7B could handle a Bf 109F. A Yak-9 or La 5 could deal with early G models and so on. The problem was getting A) enough units of the best fighter of the moment to the front line units in time or the next battle, B) get the production quality high enough that they are performing at or near spec (that was a big one), and C) get enough farm boys trained to be pilots with enough skill to get the most out of them, and enough talented veterans put in the right places to lead them.
Hispano Suiza was based in Spain, in Catalonia. The chief engineer and designer who created the main gun in the Spitfire and the Hurricane (and a lot of other planes) was Swiss -hence the name but they were a Spanish company. They also had a branch in Paris and a branch in Argentina, but beyond that I think they mostly just sold their designs for things like inline engines and guns. And inline engines which worked with guns in the middle
There is a difference (a large one in my opinion) in that while the Russians fitted a lower powered substitute engine into production/service fighters than they were designed for, the US and the British never did. Both countries had fighter prototypes powered by engines that either outright failed or had development problems but none of these fighters went into production with lower powered engines.
P-38 went into production with higher powered engines than the Prototype (and that may have had better engines than initial paper design?)
P-39 went into production with the same power engines as the Prototype (and that may have had better engines than initial paper design?)P-39 did have the turbo removed.
P-40 went production with as good or better engines than the Prototype. (prototype used a C-19 engine and not the C-33)
P-47 went into production with the same power engines as the Prototype
P-51 went into production with the same power engines as the Prototype
All of these planes got higher powered engines later in life as did the Russian aircraft.
F4F went into production with the same power engines as the Prototype, although a few got lower powered engines.
F4U went into production with higher powered engines than the Prototype (Prototype had an 1850hp engine)
F6F went into production with the same power engines as the Prototype.
I don't know of any British fighter that went into production with a lower powered engine than the prototype or planned engine in design stage.
Well, you own statement shows why the Soviet high command wanted higher performing planes. They knew that conditions B and C were NOT going to be met and they needed to insure some measure of superiority in design in order to allow for shortfalls in production performance and the shortfall in skilled pilots. It is easier to keep your green pilots alive and have them become experienced pilots if they are flying planes with superior performance.
What the Soviet high command wanted and what they got were not always the same thing.
Par for the course I guess, never let facts get in the way of a good theory eh?
Ok despite the futility let's summarize what I posted on this so far:
Feb 1942
38 x MC.202, 81 x MC.200 and G.50, and 61 x CR 42 - fits your theory
November 1942
146 MC.202, 21 Re 2001, 12 MC.200, 26 G.50bis and 72 CR 42 fighter bombers- doesn't fit your theory
June 1943
6 x Bf 109, 11 x MC 205, 10 x Re 2005, 32 x MC 202, 4 x MC 20, 4 x D.520, 17 x CR.42 - doesn't fit your theory either
Looks like the B-26 suffered from mission creep: forward firing MG's for low level attacks, bombardier's nose and ventral guns for level bombing, bomb bay capable of holding a torpedo - it could have benefited from somebody deciding what mission it was meant for and outfitting it just for that - or shipping multiple armament kits, as was done with the B-25.