Readie
Chief Master Sergeant
Its always good to air views but, you are right. Sorry for the diversion....
Cheers
John
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
How about we stop with the this could do that and that could not do this. Please apply the criteria already established in Posts #1 and #100 to what you think is the best choice and post the results.
. If the LW could have it would have had these type of fighters tell me they were not aware of these shortcomings after the BoB. When they launched 109s after the B17s the 109s would sometimes not even make contact but would have to land and refuel and try and continue the chase
What makes you think it would've been impossible for Germans to install their cannons into P-51/-47? Or DB-605 into P-51 airframe?
So you mean that the LW would need an aircraft with 1).Range 2).Firepower to take on the B-17.Something like the Bf110 or Ju88 ? The versions used as nighfighters had these characteristics but they couldn't face single engined fighters.If the Germans had the P-47 or P-51 how would they attack bombers? With the weak 0.5 inch guns?
Why on earth would they need to do such a thing ? What prevented them from using their own aircraft ? What possible advantage could they gain by such hypothetical experiments?
"Good" superchargers for work at 20,000ft and up are incredibly bulky and require an inter-cooler/after-cooler to reach anywhere near their full potential.
See: http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/F4U/F4UIS.gif
Please note that shows only one side of the intake system for a F4U. The size of the piping/ducts and inter-cooler would have to go up in proportion. The size of a two stage supercharger and inter-cooler system to feed a 4360 cu in engine might nave been more than they could fit in the Corsair.
I see. Looking at an outline drawing, their appears to be no room for growth forward of the cockpit. The F2G-1 does not add any length to the F4U and the cockpit does not look to have been moved aft. The only way I can see for them to put the longer engine is is either to reduce the size of the fuel tank or to reduce the size of the compressor. Maybe a reduced compressor is the reason for such low performance at higher altitudes. The XP-72 with its aft turbocharger, had plenty of room to increase its size. In addition, a larger and heavier turbocharger located aft of the wings would mitigate the heavier R-4360 engine.
Yes the 109 had its way until the 51 arrived , it could pick and choose when to fight it had the advantage of ground control and fighting over its home territory the USAAF fighters negated this ability. please do not think that I am saying the US was better as it was far from that . When the 51 arrived in 43 the LW was waning and the 51 was able to complete the task that was started by Russians and Commonwealth
During forty years of experience with firearms both in and out of the military, you are the first person I have ever encountered that described John Browning's .50 caliber with the word "weak".
Expense, redundancy, ease of maintenance, rapid fire, ammunition capacity, and most importantly sufficient power are qualities to be balanced against raw power.
From "Flying Guns, World War II" page 98 referring to the BoB
"In a comparison between the British fighters and the Bf109E, the striking difference in ammunition supply must be noted. The British fighters carried 300 rounds for each of their eight machine-guns, enough for sixteen seconds of fire. The Messerschmitt's 20 mm cannon were restricted to 60-round drums, a supply for seven seconds. On the other hand it carried 1,000 rounds for each of the two rifle-calibre guns (this was reduced to 500 if an engine cannon was installed), and because the MG 17 was not particularly fast-firing, and synchronised as well, this supply was good for about a minute of fire! Because the cannon were far more destructive weapons that the machine-guns, the effectiveness as a fighter of the Bf 109 decreased sharply when they ran out of ammunition: but the German pilot still had some guns to defend himself with."
"Clearly the low-velocity, low-rate-of-fire MG-FF was more suitable for dealing with bombers than with fighters, and the RAF would probably have benefited more from such a gun than the Luftwaffe did. Aside from this weapon and the very limited use of the Hispano by the RAF, both sides relied (too much) on rifle-calibre weapons. It has been claimed that Goring later said that the Luftwaffe could have won the battle if it had had the Browning .50 in.; even if he indeed said so he was probably wrong. But there was an awareness, on both sides, that the armament was not what it should have been. That there was an alternative was demonstrated in Belgium, where Avions Fairey completed two or three license-built Hurricanes with four 12.65 mm FN-Browning (.50 in. M2) guns before the country was overrun." (bold add for emphasis by Lighthunmust)
Of course merely having the .50 would not have changed the outcome of the Battle of Britain! The Americans were not the only nation thinking four .50s was the way to go for balance of power and firing time. Fabrique Nationale could have easily provided rifle caliber guns. Perhaps if the Luftwaffe's single engine fighters carried heavy machineguns with lots of ammunition and had the fuel efficiency of a Mustang for longer patrol times to shoot down the escort fighters, it would have allowed the twin engined bomber destroyers to be more effective. The .50 caliber MG with sufficient ammunition supply was a very good compromise of firing time and power for shooting down any WW2 aircraft. It was not weak, it was sufficient in power and efficient in all other areas of performance.
The XP-72 did not use a turbocharger. It had a supercharger. - Bodie in "Republic's P-47 Thunderbolt" page 404
I get it totally and rely on first hand info , Stats are reasonable guideline for aircraft performance but I wouldn't bet the farm on them .again you don't seem to get it. but whatev... sorry for straying from the O/Ps original question.
Let me try remind you some cases of 50 claimed weak
1)Korea .According to american pilots ineffective against Mig 15 , Il10. Many sources e.g Korean war aces,Osprey
2) American Navyrecognized F8F firepower (6x0,50)inadequate and ordered the development of F8f1b armed with cannons. Source F8F in action ,page 22. F4u also went for the 20 mm later.
3) RAF in all its latest figther rejected it in favor of 20mm cannons( Spitfire 21, Spiteful, Sea Fury,Tempest, )
4)Soviets never liked it, rarely used it
5) You claim that it was sufficient for destruction of targets like B17,B29,IL2,B24? Okay, some even claim that it could destroy Tiger tanks
6) There are free sites about guns that provide the maths that proves that the 0,50 was not the best air gun .Mg ff actually was pretty good and certainly better than 0,50 . Galland field modified one of his Bf109F to carry the weapon
7) The very late 190s (A8/9, F8/9, Ta152)had armor that could resist a reasonable number of 12,7mm hits (up to 15-20mm armor,source Dietmar Harmann books)
7sec is not ideal but decent for a proper trained pilot. I never have readen that luftwaffe s problem in Battle of Britain was the armament. The only think that Bf 109E needed to have mustung succes was the Drop tanks , rate of production and proper battle tactics.
I get it totally and rely on first hand info , Stats are reasonable guideline for aircraft performance but I wouldn't bet the farm on them .
well then maybe you can explain exactly how the P-51 put the "smackdown" on the Bf109?
BTW.. D.Brown(?), an American Test Pilot concluded the a Bf109G could reach Mach .83 in
a dive, the P-51D Mach .80, the P-47 Mach .73. he also concludes that a Mach .74 Dive
in a P-47 would = a "graveyard dive". so it seems to me, that the 109 could pick and choose
when to fight, and when to get the hell outta dodge. as most P-51 pilots would not continue
in a dive with a Bf 109. despite what you see on History Channels "Dogfights".
cheers.
PS.. the Bf109K was pretty much equal in speed to the Mustang, and as we
all know, nothing could outclimb the 'K' (props driven WWII era).