Weaknesses in fighters.

[davebender]

WWII era Mustangs had a reputation for being vulnerable to ground fire. Some A-36s operating in the Med were supposedly replaced with P-40s for that reason.

Strangely enough the USAF employed large numbers of P-51Ds for ground attack during the Korean War. Seems like that wouldn't be the case if the Mustang was already known to be poor for CAS.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

WWII era Mustangs had a reputation for being vulnerable to ground fire. Some A-36s operating in the Med were supposedly replaced with P-40s for that reason.

Strangely enough the USAF employed large numbers of P-51Ds for ground attack during the Korean War. Seems like that wouldn't be the case if the Mustang was already known to be poor for CAS.

You just described any liquid cooled engined aircraft. So we can replace it to "WW2 era 109s, Spits, Hurricanes, etc.

 

[davebender]

I disagree.

Ju-87 and Il-2 CAS aircraft were considered well protected vs ground fire despite having liquid cooled engines. I'd hazzard a guess the Fw-190D9 with annular radiator was also somewhat tough to kill.

 

[ShVAK]

P/F-51D's were the most plentiful piston engine fighter the USAF had on hand by the Korean War and they had lots of spare parts for them. That is the primary reason they were used and not the P-47N or even the faster H model.

 

[davebender]

For the Korean War CAS mission you don't need a fighter aircraft.

What happened to all the B-25, B-26 and A-26 twin engine bombers? You could even use surplus SBD, SB2C, F6F and F4U naval aircraft if they are available.

France employed some F8Fs for CAS in Vietnam. I've got to assume the USAF had priority over France for surplus USN aircraft.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I disagree.

Ju-87 and Il-2 CAS aircraft were considered well protected vs ground fire despite having liquid cooled engines.

And they were not fighters, they had better armor protection, as they were built for ground attack.

I should have specified.

The P-51 however was no more vulnerable than the Bf 109, Spitfire, Hurricane, etc from ground fire.

I'd hazzard a guess the Fw-190D9 with annular radiator was also somewhat tough to kill.

Of course you would. It was built by Germany.

Great aircraft though...

 

[Tante Ju]

The kits were not made,nor was it standard on any G series aircraft.

Me 109G-2 operating manual from June 1942...

 

[ShVAK]

Oh I agree, I think the A-1 should have been supplied to the USAF as well. Or a land-based version of the AM Mauler. Either would've been ideal for CAS.

A/B-26 was credited with destruction of 38,500 vehicles, 406 locomotives, 3,700 railway trucks, and seven enemy aircraft on the ground in Korea and were active throughout the war. B-25 was largely withdrawn from service and placed in storage so they could've been used but were inferior to the Invader by that point, B-26 Marauders were mostly scrapped after 1946.

 

[stona]

If that means what I think it does with my school boy German then one or two books need updating

The coolant circuit on the G series,particularly an early one,was essentially the same as the F series so it's quite possible.

Thanks

Steve

 

[VBF-13]

Me 109G-2 operating manual from June 1942...

Sorry, I don't understand French.

 

[Juha]

Thanks a lot, Tante Ju. I just checked the Finnish AF Operating manual for 109G-2, its a translation of the German one, and yes, the same instruction is also in it.

Juha

 

[Tante Ju]

Sorry, I don't understand French.

Left side of papers (marked) says, in French

"Hand lever for coolant radiator cut-off"

Right side of paper says:

"In case the coolant radiator fails due to a hit, the failing radiator must be immidiately cut off by pulling the grips in the lower left and right of the cocpit"

Juha, you are welcome. I also find how system shows in Parts liste 109G, March 1942. So I think, it was retrofit for 109F, standard for 109G.

 

[Juha]

Thanks again Tante Ju!
So they moved the valves from under engine, where they were in retrofitted 109Fs, to near the firewall already in early Gs. Very interesting. I have known that in G-10s when they were fitted, and thanks to you info they seemed to have been standard fitting, they were near the firewall.

Thankfully
Juha

 

[ShVAK]

For the Korean War CAS mission you don't need a fighter aircraft.

What happened to all the B-25, B-26 and A-26 twin engine bombers? You could even use surplus SBD, SB2C, F6F and F4U naval aircraft if they are available.

France employed some F8Fs for CAS in Vietnam. I've got to assume the USAF had priority over France for surplus USN aircraft.

Also it should be noted that most of those medium bombers aren't really needed in a modern CAS role either. WWII-era medium bombers are rather vulnerable aircraft with 6-7 man crews and large, slow targets by late '40s and early '50s standards--even the more modern A-26. You lose one and you potentially lose six times the amount of trained personnel compared to a P-51 shot down over enemy lines--which is a very strong possibility in a CAS operation.

The F4U and AD-1 were both perfect for CAS because they were tough single-seaters and could carry substantial payloads (and both could give a decent account of themselves defensively--even the big slow Douglas shot down a MiG-17 or two over Vietnam), and naturally the USN was reluctant to part with either at the time. F6F might've been a contender, most were used by the USN for training and target drones. The other two dive bombers were out of inventory by 1950.

USAF didn't really have anything ideal for CAS during Korea but the F-51D and F-82 did a fair job considering what they were originally designed for and like the Sea Fury after the bombs were dropped could make a KPAF MiG pilot's life difficult if he got careless. The P-47N would've likely been even better except for the higher maintenance requirement and lack of spares.

I don't think the Sea Hornet was ever used by the FAA during Korea but with some additional armor it might've been okay for that role too--at least it was fast, had a one-man crew and was a dedicated fighter-bomber that could carry a fair amount of ordnance.

 

[stona]

So I think, it was retrofit for 109F, standard for 109G.

I agree. Good stuff and well found! Thanks
Steve

 

[beitou]

I do apologise for my thread starter being a bit wide. I have no where near the level of knowledge exhibited in these fora, I am to the level of a casual hobbyist.
My idea was to open up a discussion of individual aircrafts weak spots/ flight charterisitic and how the opposing side reacted to them. Some one phrased it as all aircraft have strengths and weaknesses and try to fight to minimise and maximise these. An example of the sort of think I was thinking about was the merlin cutting out on diving until Miss Tilly's orifice was filled. Presumably here the 109 would be able to use diving away as a eescape manoever. Thanks for all your answers gents, learning a lot.

 

[krieghund]

It would be interesting to see where in the circuit they were exactly located....should be 4 valves (one inlet and one outlet per radiator)

 

[stona]

Presumably here the 109 would be able to use diving away as a eescape manoever. Thanks for all your answers gents, learning a lot.

Generally on paper that would be true. The AFDU (Air Fighting Development Unit) of the RAF established that a Bf 109 G would accelerate quicker in a dive than a Spitfire IX.
The problem is that you can't dive indefinitely. There were limitations put on the Bf 109 in a dive as there were on all aircraft.
Douglas Bader said that when a Bf 109 tried to evade him in this way he would half roll and follow his target down rolling back to hopefully find it in front of him. There was a common belief in the RAF that if the Bf 109 was pulled sharply out of a dive it could fail (the wings would come off). There is some anecdotal evidence from some fairly senior Luftwaffe pilots that this was a concern to them,particularly on the earlier F series. Bader described the German pilots,in his words as "being a bit porky on the joystick when flying very fast." He would catch them as they attempted to recover from the dive being confident that he would not break his Spitfire.
Steve

 

[michaelmaltby]

Falling apart mid-air is a weakness. Both early P-39 Airacobras and Hawker Typhoons had structural failures - tail sections IIRC - in their early deployment.

Bell Aviation shipped out in-field "patches" to the Soviets, I seem to recall reading.

MM

 

[VBF-13]

Left side of papers (marked) says, in French

"Hand lever for coolant radiator cut-off"

Right side of paper says:

"In case the coolant radiator fails due to a hit, the failing radiator must be immidiately cut off by pulling the grips in the lower left and right of the cocpit"

OK, good. Now if I can just translate that English, this is evidence the G had instructions on how to cut off the coolant, should that radiator fail, unlike what was previously being asserted. Just trying to follow this technical discussion, I'm a novice...