Worst aircraft of WW2?

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

Regarding the debates by all of us" experts" about performance charts and combat effectiveness of our various favorite. airplanes, I have a comment and question. I recently read an article which was about a gentleman who headed up the business of selecting firearms for the US Army prior to the War of Northern Aggression. As we all know both army's infantry were armed for the most part with similar weapons. They were a percussion 50 cal or so muzzle loading rifled musket which was effective out to maybe 500 or 600 yards. One reason that the Henry and Spencer rifles were not widely used or thought to be effective was that they did not have the killing power at long ranges of the rifled musket. The article stated that a recent study showed that the average range of an infantry engagement during that unfortunate war was 127 yards. Hmmmmm?

Following that line of thought I believe it would be extremely interesting if it was possible to know at what altitude and at what average speeds the typical engagement between two fighters took place in the ETO and the PTO during WW2. My bet would be that the speeds and altitudes both would be much lower than most of us think. No where near the Vmax or service ceiling of the aircraft involved. There is a story about a mission, Ira Kepford flew in the Pacific in his Corsair. He got caught on the deck by several Zekes diving on him. He managed to force one into an overshoot and shot him down and then used WEP to get out in front with a little lead but when the water ran out he could do little more than stay in front of the pursuing Zekes while on the deck. If the Zeke was as slow as mentioned down low and the Corsair had a big advantage as all the performance numbers tell us, what is going on?

Regarding the paddle blade prop on the Corsair, I don't doubt that the props on the various Corsair models were different than that on the prototype, because the Hamilton Standard prop on the prototype was under development when the XFU first flew as well as the R2800. However in Dean's book he goes out of his way to mention the paddle blade prop on the P47s in the captions under the numerous pictures and it is possible to look at the photos and see the differences in the Hamilton and the Curtis props. All the Corsair props(except when the four blade prop of the F4U4 was introduced) look alike in the photos and Dean never mentions a paddle bladed prop for the Corsair. In fact there was a discussion about the paddle blade and the P47 and why the Corsair with the same engine did not use one earlier on this forum. Maybe the Corsair got one and it did not have the same impact for it that the P47 prop did?
 
-Said models were all obsolete/obsolescent/barely adequate at the time. At its best. This fact is undebatable because those models had very average or sub-par performances for the time being, and because some of them actually were kicked out of the sky in other theaters (as happened with the Kittyhawk/Tomakawk).
To say the Kittyhawk/ Tomahawk were "kicked out of the sky," do you have combat reports or some type of data to back that up?
 
I suspect what we are trying to say here is that the LW were optimized for Tactical Strikes, in a land-mass connected theatre of war (like Europe for example).


Cross-channel strategic campaigns were not their best card, so to speak - right ?

Yes, I am agreeing with all of you. My post was directed at RAM.
 
Some interesting point in your discussion RAM but consider this...

At the start of the war and even into its early months, pilots (at least in the US) were being taught to engage in combat maneuvers at speeds under 300 mph. Not only was this an out dated training doctrine but it related to the aircraft maneuvering speeds and structural limitations. It also played into the hand of such aircraft like the Zero and Oscar and I think the results of some early air battles speak for themselves. I don't have the data in front of me right now but I believe there were charts in either the P-38 or P-40 flight manual that showed some pretty low speeds with regards to entering and performing aerobatic maneuvers and tight turns. Of course we know later in the war this changed and "boom and zoom" was the tactic of the day, I think you'll find that many twisting and turning dogfights that did happen occurred at speeds well under Vne for the given aircraft, at least at the beginning of the war.

Flyboy - what I find continually frustrating is that no-one on this list seems to show much enthusiasm for Claire L Chennault

Claire Lee Chennault - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Which is a shame, because he explains in his various memoirs how the AVG really had already figured out the 'boom zoom' during 1937-38

Anyhow, you are an American right ? Perhaps you need to educate us Brits in the ways of Billy Mitchell too who was treated slightly more badly than Claire Chennault, but not much .....

Its not only us Brits who fail to recognize a good hero you know :rolleyes:
 
Billy Mitchell made a pest of himself lobbying for an independent air force and made a lot of enemies. There was a big splash when the bombers bombed the old WW1 ships left over from the High seas fleet but it did not really prove a whole lot and perhaps gave the US the false impression that heavy bombers could act as a defense against a foreign navy which turned out to be patently false.
 
Regarding the paddle blade prop on the Corsair, I don't doubt that the props on the various Corsair models were different than that on the prototype, because the Hamilton Standard prop on the prototype was under development when the XFU first flew as well as the R2800. However in Dean's book he goes out of his way to mention the paddle blade prop on the P47s in the captions under the numerous pictures and it is possible to look at the photos and see the differences in the Hamilton and the Curtis props. All the Corsair props(except when the four blade prop of the F4U4 was introduced) look alike in the photos and Dean never mentions a paddle bladed prop for the Corsair. In fact there was a discussion about the paddle blade and the P47 and why the Corsair with the same engine did not use one earlier on this forum. Maybe the Corsair got one and it did not have the same impact for it that the P47 prop did?

The Paddle Blades on the later Mosquito, along with the much improved Merlin, made a big difference to Sustained speeds at altitude

This is why the 190s and 109s often used to gradually fall behind on their chases of Mossies back to the UK following high-altitude radio/radar guided bombing raids.

It was not just pure VMax but the ability to keep it going at altitude. You can read about some of this on Airvectors (Greg Goebel) for example, in the section on the PR Mossies :-


"Eight PR.IXs were refitted with uprated Merlin 76/77 engines and American-designed Hamilton Standard four-bladed paddle propellers. The four-bladed propellers provided improved high-altitude performance, at the expense of poorer low-altitude performance. "
 
Last edited:
Billy Mitchell made a pest of himself lobbying for an independent air force and made a lot of enemies. There was a big splash when the bombers bombed the old WW1 ships left over from the High seas fleet but it did not really prove a whole lot and perhaps gave the US the false impression that heavy bombers could act as a defense against a foreign navy which turned out to be patently false.

Well when you say 'heavy bomber' you are talking about Handley Page ex-WW1 style right ?

I actually think you will find that US bomber planes did a fine job of stopping the Japanese Navy in its tracks - even if they were single-engined often and carrier borner ... but not always

I think Mitchell was right - he showed that Battleships were patently vulnerable to bombing, and that their days as the primary expressions of military power were over, although they did have other uses it is true.

Note. The brits sank ships using Lancs sometimes - I think they could be classed as Heavy , don't you ?
 
Flyboy - what I find continually frustrating is that no-one on this list seems to show much enthusiasm for Claire L Chennault
Had you given it more time we would have gotten there
Which is a shame, because he explains in his various memoirs how the AVG really had already figured out the 'boom zoom' during 1937-38
Actually there were no "Flying Tigers" in China at that time. They actually became operational AFTER Pearl Harbor.
Anyhow, you are an American right ? Perhaps you need to educate us Brits in the ways of Billy Mitchell too who was treated slightly more badly than Claire Chennault, but not much .....
Different subject all together and basically Billy Mitchell was a bomber pilot...
Its not only us Brits who fail to recognize a good hero you know :rolleyes:
True - after all you folks kicked "Eddie the Eagle" to the curb!
Eddie "The Eagle" Edwards - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia :lol:
 
Had you given it more time we would have gotten there

Well I have tried before ..... Honestly !

Yes Billy Mitchell was a bomber man - but nonetheless he was right - and so was Claire

Different specifics perhaps, but both were Military Aviators trying to let the World know that a change of approach was needed


(......are you sure the AVG was Post-Pearl ? )
 
Had you given it more time we would have gotten there

Actually there were no "Flying Tigers" in China at that time. They actually became operational AFTER Pearl Harbor.

Different subject all together and basically Billy Mitchell was a bomber pilot...

True - after all you folks kicked "Eddie the Eagle" to the curb!
Eddie "The Eagle" Edwards - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia :lol:

This is from Wikipedia - Pretty cool actually, Ed was not such a donkey after all

Michael Edwards (born 5 December 1963), better known as Eddie "The Eagle" Edwards, was the first competitor to represent Great Britain in Olympic ski jumping and was the British ski jumping record holder. He was also the world number nine in amateur speed skiing (106.8 mph) and the stunt jumping world record holder (10 cars/6 buses).[1][2]
 
(......are you sure the AVG was Post-Pearl ? )

The Flying Tigers were still training, they hadn't flown their first combat mission, when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. As the Japanese threatened one Allied city after another, the British asked for a squadron of Flying Tigers to help defend Rangoon. Oley Olson's Third Squadron, "Hell's Angels," headed south, while the bulk of the AVG flew up to Kunming, to protect the terminus of the Burma Road. On December 20, the AVG engaged Japanese bombers for the first time, downing four and disrupting their bombing raid on Kunming. Over Burma, the Third Squadron also met with success, claiming six on the 23rd and ten on the 25th; before Jack Newkirk's Second Squadron relieved them.

The Flying Tigers - American Volunteer Group, flew P-40s over China
 
Well I have tried before ..... Honestly !

Yes Billy Mitchell was a bomber man - but nonetheless he was right - and so was Claire

Different specifics perhaps, but both were Military Aviators trying to let the World know that a change of approach was needed


(......are you sure the AVG was Post-Pearl ? )
http://www.warbirdforum.com/erikrip.htm

In later years, many would believe the unit fought in China against the Japanese for years before the attack on Pearl Harbor.
In fact, the first operational mission of the A.V.G. was not flown until December 10, 1941, after the attack on Pearl Harbor.
The flight, a photo reconnaissance mission from Rangoon to Bangkok, was was flown by Shilling


Wheels
 
Actually I rather go on Dr. Phil - don't know if his show reaches you folks....

The Baldy Fudgepacker who has a PhD in Family Therapy ? (and recommends Registry Mechanic software)

Nope sorry, no idea - Any other Brits care to comment ?

BTW Did you know in the US that we are currently experiencing a Hung Parliament - Cameron Clegg are both hung.
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back