GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
So how does an aircraft that's designed to be a "fighter", get an improved engine, and is considered a fighter as a secondary role?
WW2 Aircraft more successful in secondary role
- Thread starter wuzak
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
buffnut453
Captain
I was pondering the same question, GrauGeist.
I wouldn't even consider the Mosquito as an answer to this question. Yes, it was capable in many roles but that variety wasn't at the expense of failure in its primary mission.
I wouldn't even consider the Mosquito as an answer to this question. Yes, it was capable in many roles but that variety wasn't at the expense of failure in its primary mission.
That's exactly what the P-40 was expected to do in North Africa and elsewhere. It was only in NW Europe that the altitudes rapidly spiralled to the point that the Luftwaffe was arriving over England, late in 1940, higher than the USAAF would arrive over Germany in 1944.
My point is that the P-51 was designed as a fighter and excelled as a fighter, not in what I would call a secondary role. It, like the Spitfire, did okay as a fighter bomber, but others did much better.
We are only disagreeing over detail, I think we both agree that it was the most important and influential fighter to operate in Europe in the latter stages of the war and that it was instrumental in delivering the only clear cut victory of the combined bomber offensive in the destruction of the Luftwaffe.
Cheers
Steve
CORSNING
Tech Sergeant
Well, I guess I must ask at this time, do you believe the P-40 replacement that the UK
expected from NA would be capable of combating the Fw 190 and Bf 109 at 20,000 ft.
If you are true to yourself the answer is no. All I am saying is the Merlin powered machine
was something totally different from what was expected from the original breed that
was originally called upon. In my book, that qualifies for the answer here.
expected from NA would be capable of combating the Fw 190 and Bf 109 at 20,000 ft.
If you are true to yourself the answer is no. All I am saying is the Merlin powered machine
was something totally different from what was expected from the original breed that
was originally called upon. In my book, that qualifies for the answer here.
Chronology is important. The British expressed an interest in the P-40 in late '39 or very early '40, I haven't looked it up. It is from this point in time that the conception of the P-51 dates. The British had no idea at the time that aerial combat would spiral to higher altitudes so quickly, it was soon a problem for the Hurricane, Whirlwind and others too.
The P-51 was designed as a fighter and the addition of the Merlin engine allowed it to excel in this role. If it did well in a secondary role that would be as an Army Cooperation aircraft, before the Merlin was fitted.
Cheers
Steve
The P-51 was designed as a fighter and the addition of the Merlin engine allowed it to excel in this role. If it did well in a secondary role that would be as an Army Cooperation aircraft, before the Merlin was fitted.
Cheers
Steve
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
The Fw190 first appeared in 1941 - this would be after the both the P-40 and P-51 in the timeline.
As it happens, the Fw190's peak combat performance is at lower altitudes.
As it happens, the Fw190's peak combat performance is at lower altitudes.
buffnut453
Captain
The Merlin-powered P-51 was different, capabilities-wise, from the Allison-engined variants but the intended role was the same. You can't have a fighter with a secondary role of fighter. It's the same role, irrespective of the opposition it's up against.
A little different take on it - how about the P-39?
It performed poorly or was intensely disliked in its primary role (in service for the US) but excelled in its secondary role (as a Lend lease aircraft with the USSR).
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Perhaps clarification of "secondary role" needs to be made.
The Ju87's primary role, for which it was designed and initially put into service, was Dive Bomber.
It's secondary role, for which it became well known for, was "Tank Buster" (aka ground attack). It was not originally designed nor imagined for this role, but it excelled at it when the conversion was made.
So if an aircraft's original concept, design and function was to be a fighter, this was it's primary role.
Putting a different engine in it, changing it's canopy or painting it orange does not change it's primary role if it continues to be used in it's primary role.
Saying that a different engine in a P-51 changes it's role from a "fighter" to a "fighter", makes no sense. If this were the case, then we could say that when the Fw190A changed from a radial engine to an inline 12, it changed it's role from a fighter to a fighter.
When I removed the small block 283 V-8 in my 1968 Chevelle and replaced it with a big block 502 V-8, it still remained in it's primary role as a passenger car (albeit a fast one), but had I cut the back off the Chevelle and hauled firewood with it, it may have performed well in it's secondary role as a very fast wood hauler.
The Ju87's primary role, for which it was designed and initially put into service, was Dive Bomber.
It's secondary role, for which it became well known for, was "Tank Buster" (aka ground attack). It was not originally designed nor imagined for this role, but it excelled at it when the conversion was made.
So if an aircraft's original concept, design and function was to be a fighter, this was it's primary role.
Putting a different engine in it, changing it's canopy or painting it orange does not change it's primary role if it continues to be used in it's primary role.
Saying that a different engine in a P-51 changes it's role from a "fighter" to a "fighter", makes no sense. If this were the case, then we could say that when the Fw190A changed from a radial engine to an inline 12, it changed it's role from a fighter to a fighter.
When I removed the small block 283 V-8 in my 1968 Chevelle and replaced it with a big block 502 V-8, it still remained in it's primary role as a passenger car (albeit a fast one), but had I cut the back off the Chevelle and hauled firewood with it, it may have performed well in it's secondary role as a very fast wood hauler.
The Fw 190 have had considerable performance in all altitudes during it's 1st two years of service.
Shortround6
Major General
I think, for the purpose of this thread, that an aircraft should have truly excelled at it's secondary role. At least in comparison to what was available at the time and could have been used instead. Not merely been available and used because they couldn't figure out what else to do with them.
For example the Hector, whatever it's contribution to the to the development of the Glider forces was, was only "successful" in comparison to other even worse alternatives. One account saying it overheated less than the Hawker Audax which was pretty much the same aircraft with a Kestrel engine. The Hectors Dagger engine being more powerful so they didn't have to thrash it quite as hard as the Kestrels. Glider towing calling for a lot of high output but slow airspeed flying which causes a lot of cooling problems. Over heating less is damning with faint praise.
Both planes used fixed pitch props and unless refitted with props of shallower pitch the existing props were probably not ideal for the job either. Lysanders and Miles Martinets had higher powered engines and variable pitch props and the Lysanders certainly existed in 1941 and early 1942 and had no place anywhere near the front line. What they were doing with them may be subject to question (how many hundreds of target tugs did they need in any given month).
Typhoons were an obvious flop as a general air superiority fighter no matter how good they may have been at low level. However with their size and power it was possible to add hundreds of pounds of armor to suit them to the low level role and with what were relatively minor modifications they did become a formidable ground attack plane.
For example the Hector, whatever it's contribution to the to the development of the Glider forces was, was only "successful" in comparison to other even worse alternatives. One account saying it overheated less than the Hawker Audax which was pretty much the same aircraft with a Kestrel engine. The Hectors Dagger engine being more powerful so they didn't have to thrash it quite as hard as the Kestrels. Glider towing calling for a lot of high output but slow airspeed flying which causes a lot of cooling problems. Over heating less is damning with faint praise.
Both planes used fixed pitch props and unless refitted with props of shallower pitch the existing props were probably not ideal for the job either. Lysanders and Miles Martinets had higher powered engines and variable pitch props and the Lysanders certainly existed in 1941 and early 1942 and had no place anywhere near the front line. What they were doing with them may be subject to question (how many hundreds of target tugs did they need in any given month).
Typhoons were an obvious flop as a general air superiority fighter no matter how good they may have been at low level. However with their size and power it was possible to add hundreds of pounds of armor to suit them to the low level role and with what were relatively minor modifications they did become a formidable ground attack plane.
The Hawker Henley - plan was for a light bomber role that ended up as a target-tug.
Somewhere I have an old RAF Flying Review magazine with a letter to the editor from a veteran Battle of Britain pilot lamenting and chastising the RAF for not changing that role (temporarily?) to fighter - to assist in that conflict.
Anyone heard of this suggestion before?
Somewhere I have an old RAF Flying Review magazine with a letter to the editor from a veteran Battle of Britain pilot lamenting and chastising the RAF for not changing that role (temporarily?) to fighter - to assist in that conflict.
Anyone heard of this suggestion before?
Primary Role: Bomber
Secondary Role: Night Fighter
That's a secondary role.
Secondary Role: Night Fighter
That's a secondary role.
Shortround6
Major General
Some squadron pilots may not have been aware of the true situation in regards to aircraft available. The shortage of aircraft was much more feared rather than a reality. The Henley wouldn't have been a very good fighter so I can't see the suggestion being taken seriously even if it had been made at the time. Add almost 8 feet to the wingspan (and about 80sq ft of wing), 4 feet of fuselage length and about 750lbs of empty weight compared to a Hurricane I and using the same engine is going to result in much less performance than a Hurricane. Think Trying to use Fulmars in the BOB with Merlin having a higher critical altitude.
- Thread starter
- #95
wuzak
Captain
The Russians still used the P-39 in its intended role as a fighter.
- Thread starter
- #96
wuzak
Captain
More to the point, the aircraft had to be more successful in its secondary role than it was in its first.
That's why an aircraft such as the Mosquito couldn't be considered.
Its primary role was as a light bomber. At this it excelled.
Its secondary role was as a reconnaissance aircraft. At this it excelled.
Its tertiary role was as a fighter-bomber/ground attack aircraft. At this it excelled.
It was very successful in the latter two roles, but it was not more successful at them than it was at its primary role. It was similarly successful at all three.
The P-51 was designed as a fighter. The P-51B was still a fighter, though with superior performance. It was the same role.
One of the popular choices has been the Bf 110. Its intended role was heavy fighter, at which it had some success and some limitations. It was then converted into a night fighter, a role in which it enjoyed considerable success, continuing to be the Luftwaffe's primary night fighter for the remainder of the war.
This would suggest to me that it was far more successful in its secondary role (as night fighter) than it did as its primary role (as heavy fighter).
The Typhoon is another example. It can't be described as a total failure in its primary role as fighter, in fact it was adequate but not good enough to succeed the Spitfire (the original plan). It did have a more successful career as a fighter bomber, probably making its name in that role.
Yep, that's why I wrote "A little different take on it."
Pbehn, air routes throughout the world were pioneered via the use of air mail delivery; perhaps the most famous firm was Aeropostale;
"Aéropostale (formally, Compagnie générale aéropostale) was a pioneering aviation company which operated from 1918 to 1933. It was founded in 1918 in Toulouse, France, as Société des lignes Latécoère, also known as Lignes aeriennes Latécoère or simply "The Line" (La ligne)."
From here:Aéropostale (aviation) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Its most famous pilot was celebrated author Antoine de Saint Exupery, who became director of Aeropostale's South American branch Aeroposta Argentina.
Antoine de Saint-Exupéry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Anyway, slight thread drift, I'd like to suggest the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation Boomerang; Australia's stop-gap fighter that found widespread service use as a ground attack aircraft.
Shortround6
Major General
I agree with everything you wrote except the part above. The Typhoon was pretty much a failure as a fighter. Or a failure due to protracted development/debugging. Had it been able to show up in numbers in late 1941 or early 1942 with a sorted out engine and tails not falling off perhaps it's reputation as fighter would be a lot better. Unfortunately by the time both problems were sorted out the Spitfire IX was entering Squadron Service and whatever advantage the Typhoon had over the Spitfire V vanished or perhaps it is better to say became irrelevant. Building fighters that can't fight at 20,000ft and above is a rather limited market in Europe in 1942/43.
And the Typhoon was not a cheap aircraft.
Yeah, that kinda ruins it a bit. That needs to be fixed before it can do anything, let alone become a good fighter. You can't say that an aircraft that suffers major structural failure in flight is 'good' at what it does, really. Yes, it was a worthy design, but it took some convincing of the Air Ministry to not cancel the Typhoon as a result of its technical difficulties by the likes of Roland Beamont, who saw some good in it. Interestingly, the Bf 109F suffered tailplanes breaking off initially, which required stiffening of the internal structure.
