Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ask An Expert- Aviation

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

  • 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:


  • chanjyj
    replied
    I have a bit of trouble understanding the question. Are you looking for details about their mission scope, their technical build, how they came about (development process)..

    Leave a comment:


  • doppelganger
    replied
    I love old planes. Actually I love WWII planes, not the biplanes and stuff.

    Expecially love the Spitfire. Used to sketch them from comics as a kid.

    Now I have been following them on Discovery Science. Also the Discovery Turbo stuff on the Reno races where the highly souped up Mustangs are boss.

    From what I understand, the Spitfire and the Mustang share the same Rolls Royce Merlin engine. But the Spitfire is called a sports car and ballet dancer rolled into one, while the Mustang had better armor and longer range.

    I would love to read something about both of these which I can understand as a lay person. Can someone please help? Chogy?

    Leave a comment:


  • Chogy
    replied
    Originally posted by Stitch View Post
    Chogy - I'm guessing that part of the reason for this is that the F-15 was probably TOO responsive to control inputs; low wing-loading on the Eagle was probably counter-productive to AAR. I'm assuming something like an F-104 was better at AAR because of the lower responsonsiveness to control inputs.
    I think it also has to do with the engines. The transition from straight turbojets to fan jets with bypass causes the engines to be a little less responsive to minute tweaks, which are critical for good formation flying. It doesn't mean it's hard or can't be done, but it's definitely noticeable. This makes the formation flying needed just a tiny bit sloppier. And you are correct, the wing loading makes it more susceptible to normal wake turbulence and bumps. The F-4, T-38, are like lead sleds; they track very true and firm. More modern jets bounce about a but more.

    Leave a comment:


  • jrb1537
    replied
    Originally posted by Stitch View Post
    Chogy - I'm guessing that part of the reason for this is that the F-15 was probably TOO responsive to control inputs; low wing-loading on the Eagle was probably counter-productive to AAR. I'm assuming something like an F-104 was better at AAR because of the lower responsonsiveness to control inputs.
    Strangely, though, the F-104 used probe and drogue, not boom type.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stitch
    replied
    Originally posted by Chogy View Post
    The Eagle was hard to refuel compared to others, because the receptacle was both behind and offset to one side. The boom telescopes, and there are color bands where the two sections mate; green, yellow, and red IIRC. We had to use the rear-view mirror to keep track of the boom, and while the guidance lights on the tanker are helpful, it was boom telescope and general position relative to the tanker that most guys used to stay in position.
    Chogy - I'm guessing that part of the reason for this is that the F-15 was probably TOO responsive to control inputs; low wing-loading on the Eagle was probably counter-productive to AAR. I'm assuming something like an F-104 was better at AAR because of the lower responsonsiveness to control inputs.

    Leave a comment:


  • Chogy
    replied
    AAR is one of those things that looks easier than it really is. It requires some very precise flying by the recipient. And it is common, especially for a noob, to fall off the boom. If you exceed certain parameters, the boom operator will release you. Much mockery and laughter ensues, and not only are you shamed before your comrades as being weak, you'll normally buy the beer that evening.

    The Eagle was hard to refuel compared to others, because the receptacle was both behind and offset to one side. The boom telescopes, and there are color bands where the two sections mate; green, yellow, and red IIRC. We had to use the rear-view mirror to keep track of the boom, and while the guidance lights on the tanker are helpful, it was boom telescope and general position relative to the tanker that most guys used to stay in position.

    The "night 4-ship flight lead AAR" mission was one of the hardest boxes you had to check off enroute to being certified as a 4-ship lead.

    Interesting trivia - the USAF went with the boom system decades ago, vs. the drogue/basket setup of the Navy. The latter was supposed to be easier, but since I never tried it, I cannot confirm that. But the reason for this choice was simple - the boom system's flow rate was much greater than the Navy variant, and this was necessary to refuel the B-52 in any sort of reasonable time period. Since the U.S. Navy did not operate massive aircraft, the drogue system was acceptable, and also more flexible in use, being able to refuel helicopters, and also refueling units could be added to other aircraft as a store, allowing buddy refueling.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X