Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Ask An Expert- Aviation
Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
-
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.
-
Originally posted by junoth1001 View PostThe reason that both the RAF and Luftwaffe changed to night time bombing was the massive losses that they had suffered during daytime raids.
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:
-
Originally posted by Albany Rifles View PostYeah 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:
-
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:
-
Originally posted by doppelganger View PostThanks 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:
-
Originally posted by Albany Rifles View Posthttp://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.
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:
-
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:
-
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:
-
Originally posted by chanjyj View PostI have a bit of trouble understanding the question.
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:
-
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:
-
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:
-
Originally posted by Stitch View PostChogy - 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:
-
Originally posted by Stitch View PostChogy - 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:
-
Originally posted by Chogy View PostThe 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.
Leave a comment:
-
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:
Leave a comment: