WW2 Aviation Mythbusters

Readie said:

Because their are loads on it and I did not want to swamp the thread.
The myths are quite interesting I think.
Just google 'Aviation Myth's if you want to see for yourself.
They are cut and pasted unaltered.
Cheers
John

Click to expand...

I did see for myself. That is why I asked about posting a link.

buffnut453 said:

But none of that indicates that the names were applied during the combat use of the Gladiators. It's entirely feasible that the F, H, C names came into being in the period Jun-Nov 41 as a propaganda boost given that, by then, it was clear that Malta would not be taken. Thus it seems reasonable that the statements of Burges and others can be aligned.

Click to expand...

I agree and personally like the other names that were also assigned Pip, Squeak and Meredith which were popular characters in a then Brit newspaper cartoon.

iron man said:

Sorry, I disagree.
To the point, I would propose the fact that German science held a significant lead on the WAllies in the field of transonic/hypersonic aerodynamics. Germany built the first high transonic wind tunnel (in the mid-30's) and the facilities connected with the University of Gottingen defined the "state of the art" by war's end.

America's first such facility did not not become operational until July 1942. Privately funded (the "powers that be" steadfastly refused to invest in such infrastructure ), it could achieve Mach 2.5, although only in a 9" x 9" (81 in/sq) area.

When the research facility at Penemunde was over run at war's end, a fully functional Mach 5 (i.e. true "hypersonic") wind tunnel was discovered...

By the end of the war, the NACA folks were certainly "catching up" in some respects. The post-war union of all the research done on "both sides of the fence", allowed for the quantum leap in US/British aircraft designs which characterized the late 1940's and early 50's. German science (and technology transfer) also played an undeniable role in the design work at the various bureaus in the USSR. Due to the nature of the Soviet regime, much of this story will likely never be fully told, at least in an academically supportable manner.

Of particular note is the work of one Adolf Busemann, the man responsible for the swept wing, and the initial definition of the "area rule" principle.

Here's a link to a very well researched dissertation looking at the topic you've raised. It is extensively footnoted for those who wish to use it as a springboard for further research.

LINK

Click to expand...

.

There are many many pioneers in all countries that one could say contributed directly and indirectly to modern aircraft design.

John

The 1st page in Iron mans article is incorrect in stating the Meteor was the only Allied combat jet ....was not the P80 in Italy and I'm sure if needed which it wasn't would have gone against 262

Only 45 P80 were built till the end of WWII and only 4 were at Europe!

2 in England 2 in Italy! Hardly combat ready!

DonL said:

Only 45 P80 were built till the end of WWII and only 4 were at Europe!

2 in England 2 in Italy! Hardly combat ready!

Click to expand...

only need one, then why do we always babble about the DO335 and the Horten etc etc etc

With all respect,

who had told that the Ho 229 and the D0 335 were combat ready in this forum?

They were in development nothing else!
Both birds were in no single combat mission but from the Do 335 were 40 planes produced and from the Ho 229 only 3 and only one is ever flown.

".... The account of the German jet program begins with a young Doctoral student freshly minted from the University of Göttingen in 1935."

The Nazis were securely in charge of the levers of power by then ...... so did Nazi science get the jet engine "right" and Frank Whittle get it "wrong" ? ... is that your personal conviction, Iron man.

Curious, not judgmental

MM

DonL said:

Only 45 P80 were built till the end of WWII and only 4 were at Europe!

2 in England 2 in Italy! Hardly combat ready!

Click to expand...

The 4 aircraft were actually YP-80s and were sent to Europe in order to demonstrate their capabilities to combat crews and to help in the development of tactics to be used against Luftwaffe jet fighters. 45 P-80As were delivered by May 1945, there were another 250 P-80As on the production line during that period part of an inital 500 plane order. The two sent to Italy actually flew combat sorties.

As far as who was ahead it rather depends on exactly which aspect of technology one is referring to. The were just over a dozen wind tunnels in the US at the start of the war, by the end there were around 40. While none may have been Mach 5 tunnels ( or even Mach 3) they must have been contributing something to aerodynamic knowledge. You also need metallurgy and production ability. Not just the ability to make a new alloy but the ability to make it quantity consistently. When making large aircraft the ability to make large pieces is also very helpful rather than using many small pieces to make sub assemblies. New welding or fabrication techniques allow new shapes or construction features to be used on a mass production basis.
Even simple things like mass produced plain bearings so roller bearings do not have to be used can make a difference.
There are many things that go into overall aviation technology besides cutting edge research.

"... The two sent to Italy actually flew combat sorties."

That's interesting.

MM

Here's one-
The Hellcat was designed using data received from studying the Koga's Zero that crashed in the Aleutian Islands. I believe the final design of the Hellcat predates Koga's crash by many years, and the final testing and design was approved and ordered about the same time the Zero was recovered in Alaska.

The F6F contract was signed June 1941, first flight June 1942. Koga crashed June 1942. FlyBoyJ's correction to my post. Thanks!

FLYBOYJ said:

The two sent to Italy actually flew combat sorties.

Click to expand...

AFAIK this is not true

michaelmaltby said:

".... The 17 pounder could under no circumstances penetrate the frontal armor of the Tiger II using any ammunition. ..."

Who shot Michael Whitman ....? and where ...?

MM
Proud Canadian

Click to expand...

Michael's Tiger I was either destroyed by aircraft or shot through the SIDE by an AT gun at fairly close range. His tank trundled of with only 7 others, deep into enemy territory with exposed flanks and inadquete numbers, he was taking over from a commander he considered to inexperienced. The odds were against him. There was no particular courage or ingenuinity required to opportunistically ambush the exposed tigers, which were taking an audacious risk some tacticians have condemned as foolhardy due to inadquet reconaisance.

Vincenzo said:

AFAIK this is not true

Click to expand...

TRUE

Tail numbers S/N 44-83028, c/n 1007 S/N 44-83029, c/n 1008 were deployed to the 1st Fighter Group at Lesina Airfield, Italy, Joe Baugher gives references to this fact in his web site. Those 2 aircraft survived their deployment, one crashed stateside, one was later converted into a drone.

As far as what type of sorties flown? Nothing too dangerous considering that no Luftwaffe jets were anywhere close to Lesina.

You also need metallurgy and production ability. Not just the ability to make a new alloy but the ability to make it quantity consistently. When making large aircraft the ability to make large pieces is also very helpful rather than using many small pieces to make sub assemblies. New welding or fabrication techniques allow new shapes or construction features to be used on a mass production basis.

Click to expand...

But it is a very big differince if you have the ability but not the chance because of the lag of ressources!

Look at the timeline of the Jumo 004A jet engine, when it was ready to go in mass production, but had no chance because of the lag of ressources and must be converted to a Jumo 004B without saving ressources!

Ability to do something but not have the possibility is a very big difference!

parsifal said:

LOL

Click to expand...

20-Pounder (firing M3 APDS) 287 mm (at 90°, range 1000 meters)
85 mm D-48 (firing BR-372) 185 mm (at 90°, range 1000 meters)
8.8 cm PaK 43 (firing PzGr 40/43) 193mm (at 60°, range 1000 meters)
90 mm M3 (firing M304) 195 mm (at 60°, range 914 meters)

Tiger II CAN NOT be penetrated by ANY of the above. The 17 pounder
couldn't even pentrate the 80mm/55 degree glacis of the Panther reliably at point blank
let alone the 150mm/50 degree of the tiger II.

This is because of the 'slope' effect. The tables I have indicate
that the slope effect reducece penetraion by at least 0.44 (ie 2.25
times) Hence the Tigers front glacis of 150mm is equal to 340mm. In fact
the US Army when using HVAP (Tungsten Cored Amunition, High Velcity
Armour Piercing) reckoned it was 3.3, hence not even the Panther could be penetrated.

Here is the Tiger II armour.
a/ Lower front glacis: 100mm, angle from vertical -50; 1/cos(angle)=
1.557; path 155mm.
Slope effect factor about 2.25-2.5 gives a 90 degree equivalent of
225mm to 250mm.

b/ Upper front glacis; 150mm, angle from vertical +50; 1/
cos(angle)=1.557 path 233mm.
Slope effect factor about 2.25-2.5 gives a 90 degree equivalent of
337mm to 375mm.

You'll note that the US Army used a 3.3 slope effect factor for
evaluating the Panthers 80mm 55 degree glacis with HVAP.

*********************
17 Pounder APDS vs. Panther Glacis - Battlefront Forum

"During August of 1944, the U.S. conducted firing tests on 3 captured
Panthers using a variety of guns and ammo, including 17 pounder APDS.

The ammo proved to be wildy inaccurate. Of 13 shots aimed at the
Panther glacis at 200 and 300 yards, only 7 hit the target. 1
penetration occurred. "

Only 1 of 7 glacis hits penetrated at 200 and 300 yards.

The inaccuracy and inability to consistently penetrate were attributed
to unbalanced rounds due to uneven shedding of sabot pieces.

British observers noted that in earlier trials at Balleroy, 2 hits out
of 4 on the Panther glacis penetrated at 700 yards.

British penetration data for 17 pounder APDS is at 30°, using U.S.
HVAP slope effects the 700 yard penetration at 0° would be 245mm.

The Panther glacis armor is 80mm @ 55° which is equivalent to 268mm at
0° using U.S. firing test HVAP slope effects.

If 17 pounder APDS penetrated Panther glacis on half the hits at 700
yards, this may approximate the ballistic limit and the
armor quality vs. APDS would be (245/268), or 0.91 when penetration =
effective armor resistance.

This analysis suggests that 17 pounder APDS can be modelled with U.S.
firing test HVAP slope effects, which exceed CM figures.
The results also support the theory that APDS was inconsistent and
could vary widely in accuracy and penetration,
sometimes failing to penetrate at 200 yards and then penetrating on
half the hits at 700 yards.
***********************
Note panther was moving from 80mm to 110mm armour by 1945.
with a new more armoured turrer using a coaxial recuperator to reduce
size and increase armour.

APDS was a dodgy product. The Germans had it as well though they didn't fire
Tungsten cores, ordinary steal had to do.

Siegfried said:

Michael's Tiger I was either destroyed by aircraft or shot through the SIDE by an AT gun at fairly close range. His tank trundled of with only 7 others, deep into enemy territory with exposed flanks and inadquete numbers, he was taking over from a commander he considered to inexperienced. The odds were against him. There was no particular courage or ingenuinity required to opportunistically ambush the exposed tigers, which were taking an audacious risk some tacticians have condemned as foolhardy due to inadquet reconaisance.

Click to expand...

From that statement it seems you think war is some kind of game where you fight "fair". Tank warfare consist of basically ambush tactics whenever possible, if you're presented with a side shot, you take it. It takes courage just to stay on a battlefield and take your chances.
The western allies at that time had no tank that could go toe to toe with a Tiger I, Michael Wittman knew that, but i'm not going to be juvenile and suggest that Wittman was less courageous for taking advantage of that superority.

Messy1 said:

Here's one-
The Hellcat was designed using data received from studying the Koga's Zero that crashed in the Aleutian Islands. I believe the final design of the Hellcat predates Koga's crash by many years, and the final testing and design was pproved and ordered about the same time the Zero was recovered in Alaska.

Click to expand...

The F6F contract was signed June 1941, first flight June 1942. Koga crashed June 1942.

Thanks for the correction FlyboyJ. That even makes my post all the more the more true. I still read articles where the Hellcat is listed as being built to counter the Zero, and info taken from Koga's Zero was used to modify the Hellcat design.