Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Resp:
I was not suggesting that the problem was not serious, only that they may have, as you stated . . . looked for an alternate solution. The Spitfire Mk XI became the solution, although likely believed it was only short term. In Africa, the RAF had no long range Recon fighter, which resulted in the USAAF in Theater furnishing an Allison engine Mustang (an A-36 of all things, as it could carry wing drop tanks) that they outfitted with cameras. Their Spitfires/Hurricane had short legs, so we're not suited for the task.
Every since I built my first P-38 it seemed to me that it was not as streamlined as it could have been. Four radiators could not have been as clean as the two wing mounted radiators in the Mosquito, and the complex horizontal tail had to have some needless interference drag as compared to the P-61 design. Add to that the various inlets and pipes and the exposed turbocharger and it just seems it could have been better.
Resp:Ans:
The Mk.Xl had a range of over 1300 miles....short legs? A total of 471 Mark XIs were built between April 1943 and January 1946. Great Britain and its allies flew various photo-reconnaissance versions of the Spitfire with great success in all theaters during World War II. The U.S. Army Air Forces' 14th Photographic Squadron of the 8th Air Force operated Spitfire Mark XIs from November 1943 to April 1945
Resp:
Yes, but did they have them in North Africa in early to mid-1943?
Resp:Repl:
"The first PR.XIs entered service in the Mediterranean Feb./Mar '43" Source: Classic Warbirds - Merlin PR Spitfires. Looking for squadrons now......
Resp:
No need. Doesn't answer why the RAF asked for an Allison Mustang from the local USAAF. They kept it so long that they painted roundels on it.
Resp:
I was not suggesting that the problem was not serious, only that they may have, as you stated . . . looked for an alternate solution. The Spitfire Mk XI became the solution, although likely believed it was only short term. In Africa, the RAF had no long range Recon fighter, which resulted in the USAAF in Theater furnishing an Allison engine Mustang (an A-36 of all things, as it could carry wing drop tanks) that they outfitted with cameras. Their Spitfires/Hurricane had short legs, so we're not suited for the task.
Resp:Q:
Do you have a reference for that?
And please define "recon fighter". Is it an armed reconnaissance aircraft, used for tactical reconnaissance, which would not necessarily require long range. If it was for tactical reconnaissance, it would also be used at low level, which would also explain the use of a P-51/A-36 aircraft.
Follow up: Northwest Africa Tactical Air Force, July 1943 spreadsheet shows only one Recon Unit under Air Vice Marshall Broadhurst, flying Spitfires; No 40 Squ, SAAF.Rej:
Did address the "short legs" comment though
Follow up: Northwest Africa Tactical Air Force, July 1943 spreadsheet shows only one Recon Unit under Air Vice Marshall Broadhurst, flying Spitfires; No 40 Squ, SAAF.
How many Ki-84s did they see?
Update/Correction:Resp:
I cannot clarify, as it was taken from an article on Allison engined Mustangs. It stated merely that an RAF unit in North Africa asked, and received a Mustang from a local USAAF unit, which they outfitted with cameras. They kept it so long that they painted RAF roundels on it.
Resp:Control forces were studied in NACA Report No 755 Requirements For Satisfactory Flying Qualities of Airplanes. See attached file.
The target for maximum aileron control force at below 80% of maximum speed was:
a. Wheel-type controls: +/- 80 pounds applied at the rim of the wheel.
b. Stick-type controls: +/- 30 pounds applied at the grip of the stick.
This was determined by the limitations of pilots in applying forces to the lateral controls.
This explains why the P-38 had a wheel.
Resp:Regarding post 445, Flyboyj said that the Allies in the ETO faced better enemy aircraft. Not too sure about that one.
They certainly faced enemy aircraft that had potentially higher top speed, but Japanese fighters were pretty darned good in their best-maneuvering range. Early on, they also had some seasoned combat veterans as leaders. By the time late-war was upon them, the aircraft were very good, even if not quite as fast as the German aircraft, but a large percentage of their seasoned combat veterans had been lost.
The Ki-84, Ki-44, Ki-100, J2M, and N1K series of aircraft were all excellent ... in the hands of a good pilot, with decent speed, if not exactly fast, and decent armament.
Not a strong disagreement here with Flyboyj because circumstances above consipred to make the late-war Japanese fighter force less effective overall than the Luftwaffe was when they were late-war, but teh aircraft themselves wewre pretty good when properly employed.
It would be an interesting "what if" to have swapped some good aircraft between Germany and Japan to see what developed in the way of tactics and results but, of course, it never happened.
Resp:
I always wondered why it had a wheel vs a stick. I assumed it was carried over from Lockheed's other twin engined aircraft.
The Japanese built great aircraft but operationally there were many challenges that go back to how they were built, interchangeability and field logistics was always an issue. IMO if you do a side-to-side comparison of Japanese vs German aircraft to include how they performed in the field, I think you'll find the German aircraft had the edge in overall performance.Regarding post 445, Flyboyj said that the Allies in the ETO faced better enemy aircraft. Not too sure about that one.
Resp:During a Lockheed Management Club meeting I attended around 1982/ 83, Kelly Johnson was a guest speaker. I distinctly remember him saying that he wanted to put a stick in the P-38 as well as several other mods. You'll find that a lot of items installed on aircraft aren't always decided by the manufacturer.
Resp:The Japanese built great aircraft but operationally there were many challenges that go back to how they were built, interchangeability and field logistics was always an issue. IMO if you do a side-to-side comparison of Japanese vs German aircraft to include how they performed in the field, I think you'll find the German aircraft had the edge in overall performance.
I also believe the Luftwaffe operated way more efficiently than the both the JAAF and JNAF
Perhaps a subject for another thread.