Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ask An Expert- Aviation

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • zraver
    replied
    Well, you can boil things down to numbers, that is the whole point of modeling. But they need to be refined, not raw numbers.

    Leave a comment:


  • gf0012-aust
    replied
    Originally posted by chatrapatiSAS View Post
    i have a question in my mind,how much fighter planes does the US has got and how much the Russia and china had got .apart from all of this trio where does north korea stand.
    the numerical count of whats in the ORBAT has little to do with whether there is combat effectiveness.

    numbers in isolation mean next to zero

    eg when people get excited and talk about china/india/NorK "millions of men" armies its a pretty good indicator that they've got a suspended comprehension of how long those million men armies would survive in a war against a technically astute opposing force and/or a military force developed around systems constructs.

    ditto for aircraft count.

    so, my curiosity is picqued on the trigger for your question - just so that you're not working off potentially flawed theories.
    Last edited by gf0012-aust; 28 Jun 13,, 21:48.

    Leave a comment:


  • Doktor
    replied
    List of countries by level of military equipment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    No NK there, but you can look here:
    Korean People's Air Force - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    You can also browse CSIS for data Center for Strategic and International Studies

    Leave a comment:


  • chatrapatiSAS
    replied
    i have a question in my mind,how much fighter planes does the US has got and how much the Russia and china had got .apart from all of this trio where does north korea stand.

    Leave a comment:


  • Albany Rifles
    replied
    Originally posted by junoth1001 View Post
    When the Spitfire was designed, the main requirement was for the interception of incoming bombers. Therefore, the aircraft would be using home bases and would have not need to cover great distances.
    Yup. No argument.

    Leave a comment:


  • junoth1001
    replied
    Originally posted by Albany Rifles View Post
    Absolutely agree. They had to in order to survive as a fighting force.

    The USAAF was TOTALLY committed to becoming an independent Air Force. To do that they had to an effective daylight strategic force as well as being a supporting for e for ground force. In all theaters the USAAF committed to daylight bombing. To make that happen they had the have a long range escort fighter....hence the P38, P47 and P51. The P40E had a combat radius beyond the Spit Mk Vb. This reflected the same view in earlier type.

    When the Spitfire was designed, the main requirement was for the interception of incoming bombers. Therefore, the aircraft would be using home bases and would have not need to cover great distances.

    Leave a comment:


  • USSWisconsin
    replied
    The P-40 was a pretty good aircraft, though it is much maligned in history books. The Flying Tigers P-40's handled the Japanese Zeros quite well, and had impressive kill ratios. It was inexperienced pilots who had the terrible results with these aircraft, I doubt that better designs would have changed that much when these green pilots faced seasoned veterans in air combat. Later versions of the P-40 had the Packard Merlin engine and very respectable performance, they remained in production until the end of the war. Other unsuccessful designs were removed from production fairly quickly, so the history book arguments that the P-40 stayed in production because it was too hard to change over to other designs doesn't hold up.

    Leave a comment:


  • Albany Rifles
    replied
    Originally posted by junoth1001 View Post
    The reason that both the RAF and Luftwaffe changed to night time bombing was the massive losses that they had suffered during daytime raids.
    Absolutely agree. They had to in order to survive as a fighting force.

    The USAAF was TOTALLY committed to becoming an independent Air Force. To do that they had to an effective daylight strategic force as well as being a supporting for e for ground force. In all theaters the USAAF committed to daylight bombing. To make that happen they had the have a long range escort fighter....hence the P38, P47 and P51. The P40E had a combat radius beyond the Spit Mk Vb. This reflected the same view in earlier type.

    Leave a comment:


  • junoth1001
    replied
    Originally posted by Albany Rifles View Post
    Yeah the Spit/Seafires had short legs. But the RAF did not need a long range escort. RAF bombed at night as a result. USAAF did daylight. Used P38 first and then the Bolts and Stangs as the came along. Different doctrine drive different requirements.
    The reason that both the RAF and Luftwaffe changed to night time bombing was the massive losses that they had suffered during daytime raids.

    Leave a comment:


  • Albany Rifles
    replied
    Yeah the Spit/Seafires had short legs. But the RAF did not need a long range escort. RAF bombed at night as a result. USAAF did daylight. Used P38 first and then the Bolts and Stangs as the came along. Different doctrine drive different requirements.

    Leave a comment:


  • USSWisconsin
    replied
    Originally posted by doppelganger View Post
    Thanks for the links bro. Appreciate it. Tried to Google, but there is so much that comes back, was confused where to look.

    P.S. If they could have fitted a bigger petrol tank, could the Spitfire have increased its range and removed the only drawback it had over the Mustang? Become WWII's version of the MMRCA? Or would this have involved the Spitfire losing in some of its other strong areas, like maneuverability, so it was a horses for courses thing?
    Pretty much so, the Spitfire didn't have room for more fuel tanks, not without changing its balance and performance - or requiring a bigger, thirstier engine. Even with wing tanks, it couldn't go nearly as far as the Mustang. The Spitfire was a smaller aircraft, and an older design - it was engineered to do what it did very well - but long range escort wasn't one of the things it could do well.

    Leave a comment:


  • doppelganger
    replied
    Originally posted by Albany Rifles View Post
    http://spitfiresite.com/

    Indian Air Force Spitfires - Polly Singh

    WWII Aircraft Performance

    The P-51 Mustang: sights, sounds, history -MustangsMustangs

    The P-51 Mustang?s Merlin Engine

    Simple answer on the differences. The Spitfire was intended as an Air Defense Fighter. Range was not as important as maneuverability and ease of maintence and ability to operate from grass fields. The Mustang was built initially as a ground attack aircraft and quickly moved to long range escort. In that mission, altitude, speed, good firepower at reduced weight and survivabilty...the ability to make it home with battle damage.

    The following sentiment sums up the 2 planes very well.

    Chief Naval Test Pilot and C.O. Captured Enemy Aircraft Flight Capt. Eric Brown, CBE, DSC, AFC, RN, tested the Mustang at RAE Farnborough in March 1944, and noted, "The Mustang was a good fighter and the best escort due to its incredible range, make no mistake about it. It was also the best American dogfighter. But the laminar flow wing fitted to the Mustang could be a little tricky. It could not by no means out-turn a Spitfire [sic]. No way. It had a good rate-of-roll, better than the Spitfire, so I would say the plusses to the Spitfire and the Mustang just about equate. If I were in a dogfight, I'd prefer to be flying the Spitfire. The problem was I wouldn't like to be in a dogfight near Berlin, because I could never get home to Britain in a Spitfire!"[36]

    Finally, work on your Google Fu. This took me 4 minutes to search.

    Have fun.
    Thanks for the links bro. Appreciate it. Tried to Google, but there is so much that comes back, was confused where to look.

    P.S. If they could have fitted a bigger petrol tank, could the Spitfire have increased its range and removed the only drawback it had over the Mustang? Become WWII's version of the MMRCA? Or would this have involved the Spitfire losing in some of its other strong areas, like maneuverability, so it was a horses for courses thing?

    Leave a comment:


  • Gun Boat
    replied
    Was just looking at Davis-Monthan AFB on google maps.

    A few questions:

    1. What state of preservation are the 'preserved' aircraft kept in?

    2. What kind of time frame and dollar value are we looking at if all the preserved aircraft were suddenly required in service?

    3. Do those of you guys 'in the know' reckon it's worthwhile keeping those aircraft preserved?

    Thanks in advance for any info.

    Leave a comment:


  • Albany Rifles
    replied
    http://spitfiresite.com/

    Indian Air Force Spitfires - Polly Singh

    WWII Aircraft Performance

    The P-51 Mustang: sights, sounds, history -MustangsMustangs

    The P-51 Mustang?s Merlin Engine

    Simple answer on the differences. The Spitfire was intended as an Air Defense Fighter. Range was not as important as maneuverability and ease of maintence and ability to operate from grass fields. The Mustang was built initially as a ground attack aircraft and quickly moved to long range escort. In that mission, altitude, speed, good firepower at reduced weight and survivabilty...the ability to make it home with battle damage.

    The following sentiment sums up the 2 planes very well.

    Chief Naval Test Pilot and C.O. Captured Enemy Aircraft Flight Capt. Eric Brown, CBE, DSC, AFC, RN, tested the Mustang at RAE Farnborough in March 1944, and noted, "The Mustang was a good fighter and the best escort due to its incredible range, make no mistake about it. It was also the best American dogfighter. But the laminar flow wing fitted to the Mustang could be a little tricky. It could not by no means out-turn a Spitfire [sic]. No way. It had a good rate-of-roll, better than the Spitfire, so I would say the plusses to the Spitfire and the Mustang just about equate. If I were in a dogfight, I'd prefer to be flying the Spitfire. The problem was I wouldn't like to be in a dogfight near Berlin, because I could never get home to Britain in a Spitfire!"[36]

    Finally, work on your Google Fu. This took me 4 minutes to search.

    Have fun.

    Leave a comment:


  • doppelganger
    replied
    Originally posted by chanjyj View Post
    I have a bit of trouble understanding the question.
    Some link or internet resource where I could read about these two planes and stuff.

    How they were built, what they could do, what all stuff they had, how did they compare to the competition at the time (Meschermitts and Zeros), that sort of thing.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X