Top two aircraft traits favored by each nation

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

J

jwsmith26

Recruit
4
4
Nov 16, 2016
Here's what I hope is an interesting exercise. Each of the major nations involved in WW2 pursued aircraft characteristics that reflected their national proclivities, goals and fighting environments. Using the following 7 airplane traits, which two traits were most sought after by the airplane designers of the respective countries.

I think some countries are pretty easy to categorize. For instance, for Japan as a whole I would choose Range first and Maneuverability second. For the USA I would choose Toughness first and Firepower second. Other nations, such as Italy, which was all over the place with its planes, are a bit tougher to categorize. Any opinions? Or blast away at my misinformed opinion.

Speed
Maneuverability
Range
Bomb load
Firepower
Toughness
Reliability

Nation: Japan
Overall: Range, Maneuverability
Fighters: Range, Maneuverability
Ground attack planes: (not a large enough sample)
Medium bombers: Range, Bomb load
Heavy bombers: (not a large enough sample)
Naval attack planes (TBs and DBs): Range, Speed
Float planes and flying boats: Range, Toughness

Nation: USA:
Overall: Toughness, Firepower
Fighters: Toughness, Firepower
Ground attack planes: Firepower, Toughness
Medium bombers: Toughness, Firepower
Heavy bombers: Toughness, Range
Naval attack planes (TBs and DBs): Toughness, Bomb load
Float planes and flying boats: Toughness, Reliability

Nation:
Overall:
Fighters:
Ground attack planes:
Medium bombers:
Heavy bombers:
Naval attack planes (TBs and DBs):
Float planes and flying boats:
 
Interesting post and hypotheticals.

To the U.S. I would add one more critical factor that needs/needed to be seriously considered - the capability of the design to be mass produced. This in itself could put either a quick end or a long delay to any design as it must be integrated into the process from the very beginning in the design and engineering stages, up through the actual manufacturing and assembly layouts. One might also consider ease of repair in the field (access to parts and sub-assemblies) as an ancillary factor in this process.

AlanG
 
For Italian fighters first was maneuverability, second the possibility to produce them without using too much strategic alloys and heavy machinery.
For the bombers.... the contrary.
 
The Japanese may have preferred maneuverability over all, at least initially. Range could be a fallout of the aircraft lightness. Note that for range a low wing loaded aircraft will have a low cruising speed. In the Pacific, this low causing speed fro range, on both sides was responsible for the large number of losses to an initial bounce on an unsuspecting or surprised group. As to armament, the Japanese with the maneuverability felt that in the swordsman's tradition, the accuracy was more important than the blunt force. Most aces were in fact quite good marksmen. However the toughness of the American aircraft often defeated an initial surprise.
 
I think "toughness" is something that was, especially pre-WW2, too difficult to quantify to put into a specification. The USAAF and the USN seemed to require greater load limits than some other air forces and their fighters tended to be larger, both tending to increase damage tolerance but "toughness" would be a side effect, not a goal

I think one of the greatest supports of US aircraft industry was the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics. Unlike comparable organizations in other countries, it was explicitly devoted to general industry support, and provided a massive amount of information and expertise to US industry (and some of this information migrated overseas; check out how many Luftwaffe aircraft, such as the Bf109, used NACA airfoils).
 
Nation: British
Overall: Firepower - Manoeuvrability
Fighters: Firepower - Manoeuvrability
Ground attack planes: Firepower - Toughness
Medium bombers: Firepower - Manoeuvrability (for Firepower substitute Bombload)
Heavy bombers: Firepower - Manoeuvrability (for Firepower substitute Bombload)
Naval attack planes (TBs and DBs): Flexibility (I know its not on the list but the FAA tried to get all their aircraft to cover lots of roles. Think Skua dive bomber and fighter, Fulmar fighter and recce, Barracuda everything including being Father Christmas )
Float planes and flying boats: Range and reliability
 
I think I remember a Winkle Brown quote about the Skua (not his favorite) "Skua, a bird that dives in to the sea"... As to British firepower they hung in there with the rifle caliber weapons maybe longer than they should have. Another WB quote I love: "When needs must, the devil drives". So often ya dance with the girl ya brought, changes to production even if an great improvement may disrupt production too much. Aerial warfare was a meat grinder and production assumed great importance.

Given the importance of production, ease of construction and repair were of importance.

A saying we had, born of experience was: "You don't want to fly the 100 model of anything".
 
I would add for RAF Fighters, 'Fast Intercept times'. For the FAA Fighters, it has to be 'Patrol Endurance' with speed sufficient to intercept unescorted attack aircraft.
 


Some of the maneuverability came from the initial requirements to operate out of what were soon to become absurdly small airfields. And do it using either fixed pitch or two pitch propellers. Blenheim MK I was supposed to need a take-off run of 296 yds at 12,500lbs and had a stall speed (landing speed?) of 50mph. It had a wing loading of 26.6lbs/sq/ft.
By the time you get to the Beaufighter MK X it was tested at 24,000lbs with torpedo underneath and took off in 440yds (less distance than a clean AIracobra).
A Handley Page Hampden had a wing loading of just under 34bs/sq/ft. at max gross weight.
 
If I remember, the RAF spec'ed many of its combat aircraft to operate from grass fields (note that this is not the same as unimproved); this limits braking performance pretty significantly as the coefficient of friction between grass and tires is lower than that between concrete or asphalt and tires.
 
The Skua (bird) is a predator it chases other sea birds usually to make them drop their catch. Never was a plane more inappropriately named, but the origin of the Latin name is "dung" so maybe not so far off the mark. The English word "skua" comes from the Faroese name skúgvur [ˈskɪkvʊər] for the great skua, with the island of Skúvoy renowned for its colony of that bird. The general Faroese term for skuas is kjógvi [ˈtʃɛkvə]. The word "jaeger" is derived from the German word Jäger, meaning "hunter".[1][2] The genus name Stercorarius is Latin and means "of dung"; the food disgorged by other birds when pursued by skuas was once thought to be excrement.[3]
 
You're reminding me of the Short Stirling now. That too had a short take off requirement and the ability not only to operate from anywhere in the World, but to carry 16 or was it 24 troops instead of the bomb load. Yes, it too had excellent manoeuvrability although rather a low operating ceiling when loaded with bombs. Lancaster crews loved them when going on missions as they served as flak bait.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Multi-gun day and night Fighter Aircraft with two Napier Sabre (two-stage supercharger) engines
Replies
4
Views
513
Steve Hnz
S
Radial engines favored for powering the tanks & AFVs, 1935-45
2
Replies
33
Views
1K
marathag
A
How did B-17 and B-24 formations avoid shooting each other?
2 3 4
Replies
61
Views
4K
Peter Gunn
Top of the World (1955)
Replies
8
Views
1K
special ed
S
I
Question on Luftwaffe protocols for missing aircraft??
Replies
2
Views
177
Ireland
I
Menu
Log in
Register