quote:

There's also the discussion about Radial vs. Inline engines (most German planes were inline, most Japanese were Radial). I think Radials had less HP, but stood up to the tropical climates much better (I may be way off, anyone is welcome to tell me I'm full of crap).

quote:

believe the only inline engine aircraft used on carriers were the Spit and Sea Hurries

quote:

Nawp the UK had in-line torpedo bombers too. Fairey Fulmar in the early going and Fairey Firefly in the later war.

quote:

I'm sure there was a rationale to radials, or the Japanese probably wouldn't have used them. If memory serves though (and it frequently doesn't) radials are harder to maintain.

quote:

Yup, should have said "Salerno" because they were quite effective then (BB Warspite, BB Italia and CL Uganda were heavily damaged, BB Roma sunk, the Italian BB's not exactly at Salerno, of course) - at least somewhat more effective than the silly Japanese Kamikaze stuff . At least a nuisance in 1943... (nothing that the Germans did in 1944 was eventually strategically significant because they had already lost the war by then!).

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

Yup, should have said "Salerno" because they were quite effective then (BB Warspite, BB Italia and CL Uganda were heavily damaged, BB Roma sunk, the Italian BB's not exactly at Salerno, of course) - at least somewhat more effective than the silly Japanese Kamikaze stuff . At least a nuisance in 1943... (nothing that the Germans did in 1944 was eventually strategically significant because they had already lost the war by then!).

They were a bit like chemical weapons - you get a bit of an effect when you first use them - but not much later. These weapons were almost useless - much LESS dangerous than Kamakazies - because we would jam their radio links. The problem of a kamakaze has never been solved - and would still work today - even if they flew commerical aircraft.
It is a deep dark secret of USN AAW that we really have a problem which was never solved. A related deep dary USN AAW secret is that we never did solve the problem the Germans had in reverse - OUR missiles can be defeated by jamming OUR command links too. We did once have a program to address that (it was called Typhoon) - but we never did implement it. Not having faced a technically sophisticated enemy in combat, we look a lot more capable than we really are. [As I said, it is a deep dark secret, not often admitted in general discourse].

Anyway - the kamakaze problem is a big one - and so was potentially a missile that guided itself on AA shell explosions! [It worked - but was not operational in time - imagine - the more you shoot the more you guide it at you!]

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

quote:

Nawp the UK had in-line torpedo bombers too. Fairey Fulmar in the early going and Fairey Firefly in the later war.

Yup, you're right. I'm not too familiar with Brit carrier aircraft and could only think of the Spit and Sea Hurricane.

Neither the Spit or the Sea Hurricane were designed as carrier aircraft. Were the Fulmar and Firefly designed as such from the git-go?

Chez

quote:

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

FW 190 could hold its own vs any Allied fighter and was better than anything the Japanese had (IMHO), the Bf-109 would have a little trouble vs Mustangs, Thunderbolts & Spitfires but was again better than Japanese fighters.

The fw 190 probably could hold its own against any allied late war fighter. The bf 109 was simply outdated. Mustangs would chew them up. Of course, as with any comparrison, you have to consider carefully the role in which they are used.

Also, pilot skill is crucial. Some AC, are superb in the hands of a pilot that knows how to capitalize on its characteristics, while a death trap for much less experienced pilots. Some planes were easier to master, like the P-47, while others took a longtime to fly with great proficiency.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Feinder

Somebody explained to me once why each preferred Inlines or Radials. But my eyes started to glaze over pretty quickly.

There was some advantage, like Radials being more robust or something. But a trade off, like maybe the less horse-power (can't remember tho).

-F-

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

quote:

ORIGINAL: Feinder

Somebody explained to me once why each preferred Inlines or Radials. But my eyes started to glaze over pretty quickly.

There was some advantage, like Radials being more robust or something. But a trade off, like maybe the less horse-power (can't remember tho).

-F-

Radials have more frontal area, so they're slower. On the other hand, they're air-cooled and still work if a few cylinders are shot up. YMMV.

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

I'm sure there was a rationale to radials, or the Japanese probably wouldn't have used them. If memory serves though (and it frequently doesn't) radials are harder to maintain.

A radial engine can continue to work EVEN if it is hit by enemy fire!
We had planes with ONE engine return to base/ship after MORE THAN ONE of the piston heads had been shot off!

quote:

The Republic P-47M
The Fastest Piston Engine Fighter Of The War



P-47M of the 56th Fighter Group
[image]local://upfiles/19015/AE4E0B999E3D474CBC57E07C3B7A274C.jpg[/image]


The P-47M was, essentially, developed collaterally with the XP-47J. The "J" was fitted with a high output version of the P&W R-2800. Specifically, the R-2800-57. This engine made 2,800 hp @ 2,800 rpm at 35,000 feet. This is in War Emergency Power. The aircraft actually attained 507 mph at an altitude of 34,300 feet. 2,800 hp is 133% of rated power. At military power (100%), the XP-47J could sustain 470 mph. 435 mph was attained at 81% of its rated power (1,700 hp). All performance figures were obtained at 34,300 feet. The "J" model was an especially good climbing fighter too. It had a climb rate at sea level of 4,900 fpm. At 20,000 feet, it was still rocketing up at 4,400 fpm, and got there in 4 minutes, 15 seconds. Time to 30,000 feet was only 6 minutes, 45 seconds. Now that's an interceptor! Yet it had a usable range of 1,075 miles. Rather impressive, don't you think? No, this was not a stripped down hotrod. It was fully armed and carried ballast in the wings equal to 267 rds per gun. The aircraft was flown to a height of 46,500 feet and was capable of a bit more.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

Robert Johnson returned from a mission with his P-47 sporting more than 40 20mm hits and 100 12.8mm hits from an FW pilot that caught up with him as he was straggling home with battle damage.

I recall an account of one Wildcat pilot mentioning that his F4F with two pistons shot away and an oil leak "ran pretty good on full blower."

The P-47 is my favorite all arounf fighter. And NOTHING built by any power could stand up to the 8x.50Cal the thing dished out.

quote:

The fw 190 probably could hold its own against any allied late war fighter. The bf 109 was simply outdated. Mustangs would chew them up. Of course, as with any comparrison, you have to consider carefully the role in which they are used.

quote:

ORIGINAL: hawker

quote:

The fw 190 probably could hold its own against any allied late war fighter. The bf 109 was simply outdated. Mustangs would chew them up. Of course, as with any comparrison, you have to consider carefully the role in which they are used.

I think you are wrong niceguy,
Bf-109 in later "K" version was match for Mustang.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Adnan Meshuggi

the Ju88, He111 and (with working Engines) the He2?? (in the second i forget the name... grrr... the 4engine Plane with 2 props... )

quote:

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

Wouldn't surprise me a bit. I haven't compared the numbers. I just know the stories of some of the pilots that flew these planes. After years of struggling with fighters that weren't well designed to dogfight, like the P-47, which was really a fighter bomber, many US pilots were elated to get their hands on the P-51s

quote:

You can say what you want about pure performance numbers, but no other fighter (allied or axis) was as well optimized as an air superiority fighter as was the Mustang. In terms of the overall package between performance (speed and handling), firepower, range, durability, it was the optimized air superiority fighter.

quote:

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: hawker

quote:

The fw 190 probably could hold its own against any allied late war fighter. The bf 109 was simply outdated. Mustangs would chew them up. Of course, as with any comparrison, you have to consider carefully the role in which they are used.

I think you are wrong niceguy,
Bf-109 in later "K" version was match for Mustang.

Nope. You can say what you want about pure performance numbers, but no other fighter (allied or axis) was as well optimized as an air superiority fighter as was the Mustang. In terms of the overall package between performance (speed and handling), firepower, range, durability, it was the optimized air superiority fighter. You would have to step up to jet fighters to find something better. This is what I have been told from pilots of that era. Take it for what you will.

That is because unlike almost any other allied fighter of the time, it was designed and built from the ground up with one mission in mind and that was total dominance of the skies. Not ground attack, or interception, but to knock planes out of the sky.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron James

quote:

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: hawker

quote:

The fw 190 probably could hold its own against any allied late war fighter. The bf 109 was simply outdated. Mustangs would chew them up. Of course, as with any comparrison, you have to consider carefully the role in which they are used.

I think you are wrong niceguy,
Bf-109 in later "K" version was match for Mustang.

Nope. You can say what you want about pure performance numbers, but no other fighter (allied or axis) was as well optimized as an air superiority fighter as was the Mustang. In terms of the overall package between performance (speed and handling), firepower, range, durability, it was the optimized air superiority fighter. You would have to step up to jet fighters to find something better. This is what I have been told from pilots of that era. Take it for what you will.

That is because unlike almost any other allied fighter of the time, it was designed and built from the ground up with one mission in mind and that was total dominance of the skies. Not ground attack, or interception, but to knock planes out of the sky.

How can you say that, that it was designed and built from the ground up to be have total dominance, the american engine didnt work, the mustang wasnt anything untill they shoved a rolls royce engine under the hood. And it was designed at british request anyways for photo recon and ground support untill the above happened.