A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Naval Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Essential and Dispensible WW2 aircraft.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old October 3rd 07, 05:01 AM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval
Bob Tenney
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default Essential and Dispensible WW2 aircraft.

On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 05:06:23 -0700, Eunometic wrote:

Essential and Dispensible WW2 aircraft.
***********************************************


The C-47 and the Ju-52 were pretty essential.
Ads
  #12  
Old October 3rd 07, 07:33 AM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval
Eeyore[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 163
Default Essential and Dispensible WW2 aircraft.



Eunometic wrote:

Essential and Dispensible WW2 aircraft.
***********************************************
USA:

P-51; the P-38 had sufficient range to cover untill the P-47M with a
wett wing which actually could excede the range of the P-51.


You'd have to be nuts to think the P-51 wasn't essential. It was vital in
Europe.

Why you list it under USA is odd too since it was originally designed for the
RAF as the Mustang. The USAAF only adopted it later.

The critical improvement to the Mustang was the fitting of the RR Merlin engine
which was an RAF idea.

Graham

  #13  
Old October 3rd 07, 10:07 AM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval
The Amaurotean Capitalist
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16
Default Essential and Dispensible WW2 aircraft.

On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 15:49:11 -0700, Gordon
wrote:

P-40 USAAF effective fighter of excellent quality; it was quite
effective with appropriate tactics.


What a lot of people don't fully realize is that this aircraft was
just about all we had for the first two years of the war, and it
remained in service long after it was made obsolete by others. Until
the unready P-38s and the thirsty P-47Cs came along, P-40s were just
about it!


Well, there was the P-39.....

P-47 Ready far earlier than the P-51.


But not long-range capable to the same extent nor with the same
performance; and the timing is easy to overstate the first
combat-capable P-47C's were operating in April 1943, the first
combat-capable P-51B's in November 1943.

P-51; the P-38 had sufficient range to cover untill the P-47M with a
wett wing which actually
could excede the range of the P-51.


Cost and battlefield effectiveness - P-38s would have had a very
difficult time against airfield defenses and in other roles where the
51 excelled.


More importantly, the P-51 was an altitude-capable long range fighter
escort in the ETO at a time when the P-38 wasn't, despite its long
range.

Gavin Bailey

--
Solution elegant. Yes. Minor problem, use 25000 CPU cycle for 1
instruction, this why all need overclock Pentium. Dumbass.
- Bart Kwan En
  #14  
Old October 3rd 07, 10:09 AM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval
The Amaurotean Capitalist
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16
Default Essential and Dispensible WW2 aircraft.

On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 05:06:23 -0700, Eunometic
wrote:

P-51; the P-38 had sufficient range to cover untill the P-47M with a
wett wing which actually
could excede the range of the P-51.


The P-47N wasn't available until nearly a year and a half after the
P-51B; good luck trying to sell a long-range P-47 available in
mid-1945 to Arnold when he demanded a long-range escort fighter for
the ETO in mid-1943.

Gavin Bailey


--
Solution elegant. Yes. Minor problem, use 25000 CPU cycle for 1
instruction, this why all need overclock Pentium. Dumbass.
- Bart Kwan En
  #15  
Old October 3rd 07, 12:44 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval
Eunometic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 65
Default Essential and Dispensible WW2 aircraft.

On Oct 3, 7:41 am, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:
"Eunometic" wrote in message

ps.com...



Essential and Dispensible WW2 aircraft.
***********************************************
I've created a list of aircraft of WW2 that were essential to that
side and also others that were dispensible in the sense that their
place could easily have been taken by other aircraft or that were so
ineffective that they were not needed at all.


A great deal of effort was spent on aircraft that did not perform and
were 'war loosers' while there was also a great deal of duplication of
effort on aircraft that added nothing special and detracted from gains
in production.


United Kingdom


Essential:
Hurricane; had to be avialable in numbers for battle of britain
Spitfire; had to provide quality fighter throughout the war an
amenable to all rolls.
Mosquito; night bomber, night fighter, fast day bomber and most
importanty reconaisance aircraft par excellance.
Lancaster; easy to fly, devastating war load.
Wellington: Britains Medium bomber and an important coastal command
aircraft.


Non Essential:
Beaufighter; not a useless aircraft as it could take damage but its
roll could have been taken by others. It kept bristol busy.


I strongly disagree. It played an essential role both as a nightfighter and
in the shipping strike role in the ETO and their long range made
them extremely valuable ground attack aircraft in the far east


It's contemporary the the Mosquito could also do that job, and much
better at that.
What I don't like about it was that if confronted by german airforce
day fighters it was
in deep trouble. It needed an escort; whereas the mosquito coastal
command aircraft actualy took on Fw 190.
If given a choice of choosing between 1000 extra Mosquito vs 1000 less
beaufighter?




Hampden;
Halifax; a good aircraft but Lancaster was better.
Stirling; a waste of time although a saluatory lesson.
Tempest and Typhoon: These aicraft had very poor high altitude
performance and the typhoon had handling difficulties, was not
particularly fast due to its thick wing and its airframe tended to
snap of at the tail


It could and did however make an excellent ground attack aircraft
and played a vital role in the western campaign attacking the
Wehrmacht


I don't deny it. It was kind of successful, napier and tail breakages
aside but as far as I can see the Mk XII Griffon spit could do a
better job and was available at the right time.

Immagine putting the engineers who were working on the the Typhoon/
Tempest and the Sabre to work on things more essential
such as a B-29 class bomber using the centaurus or a fast medium
bomber.


Generally the British (air ministry, raf etc) had the knack of
abandoning loosing designs and making pragmatic choices.





By 1942 Supermarine was producing the Spitifre Mk XII which had a
single stage Griffon engine and could outrun the Tempest. Although
the mk XII also had poor altitude performance its handling was better.
It would be early 1944 before the Mk XIX entered service which had a
two stage Griffon.


Germany:


Since Germany lost the war I found it hard to determine what to put in
non essential so I've added the column 'might have'


Essential:
Me 109: Hurricane vintage aircraft but remained competitive untill
1945 when Me 109K-4's were capable of 455mph and 48000ft service
ceiling and even then there were versions such as the Me 109K-14 with
a two stage supercharged DB603L engine starting production but not
delivered as well as the DB603DSCM engine touching on 2000hp at 1.98
atm boost there were test of 2.3 and 2.4 atm going on at DB which
suggests a power of 2400hp and speed of 470-480mph.
The aircraft should have been replaced far earlier with something that
had lighter contol forces and better speed. It would have performed
better with superior fuel.


Fw 190: this aircraft filled in many of the Me 109's weaknesses.


ju 88: night fighter, high speed bomber, dive or slant bomber,
maritime patrol etc.


Ju 87: Devastating in combined arms breakthrough warfare and deadly
accurate. When its days were over it lived on as a night bomber and
ground attack aircraft with one of the lowest per mission loss rates
of any Luftwaffe aircraft.


He 111: early bombing workhorse
Do 217 Only 1200 produced but still effective as a night bomber and
guided missile carrier.
Arado 234: the jet aircraft provided essential reconaisance: it was
the first and only aircraft to survey the Normandy beach-head. Two
prototypes flew about 36 missions with their engines being reliable
during this process. They were both shot down by their own German
FLAK.
Fi 103 or V1. Extremely cheap to produce consumed massive allied
resources.


Non essential:
Do 17
Me 110: its role as a night fighter could have been taken by the Ju
88, I am aware of its success in the Early Polish and Soviet Campaigns
but I don't think these were decisive.


Might Have
Me 210/410 Quite a good aircraft that was to replace the Ju 88 and


The Me-210 suffered from oscillation making it a poor gun platform and had
nasty stall
characteristics. The pilots HATED them and only a month after entering
service production was halted


The tragedy of the Me 210 was that the problem were known even before
the moment the test pilot stepped out of the aircraft on its maiden
flight. He said that the tail needed to be lengthened by 1 meter or
so. To do that over 5million reich marks of jigs would need to be
scrapped. So instead slats were tried, these didn't work and actually
made things worse, a single large as opposed to two fins was tried;
that didn't work. When the Me 210C was ordered by the Hungarian air
force they bypassed the managerial and political problems and
incorporated the lengthened tail and slats which worked brilliantly
together.

The solution to handling problems; lengthened tail, slats and contra-
rotating propellor were well known. It was said that Willy
Messerschmitt personally intervened in the design process to shorten
the tail and remove the slats. Year were wasted in avoiding these
simple modifications. Willy Messerschmitt was stripped of the assets
or his company, barely avoided jail while I think Ernest Udet probably
committed suicide over the issue.

Heinkel had been told to stop He 111 production and tool up for Me 210
and when this failed it had to produce Ju 88's instead. There was
such a loss in productivity (since tooling wasn't right) that
production suffered thousands of aircraft and forced labour ended up
being used. The rest of the industry suffered as well.

The Me 410 was simply the fixed Me 210 with bigger 44L DD603 engine
instead of 33L DB605 engines.



Me 110. Fast, advanced armament, bomb bay, efficient etc but simply
too late due to programm mismanagment to survive in allied skies.


Say What !


I meant to type Me 410. It was a good aircraft with better
performance than allied equivalents. Had it been on time or a year
late it would have had a significant impact.



The Me-110 entered service before the war started in 1939. While inadequate
against first line fighters in the West it played a valuable role as a NF
and
ground attack craft. It survived in service long after the Me-210's were
withdrawn.


I think a few modified Me 210 opperated succesfully before being
renamed Me 410 when they got the new engines to get away from the bad
name.



Keith



  #16  
Old October 3rd 07, 01:07 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval
Eunometic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 65
Default Essential and Dispensible WW2 aircraft.

On Oct 3, 9:49 am, Gordon wrote:
On Oct 2, 7:06 am, Eunometic wrote:

Essential:
Hurricane; had to be avialable in numbers for battle of britain
Spitfire; had to provide quality fighter throughout the war an
amenable to all rolls.


Series numbers need to be included in your listing, as some marks of
each of these aircraft made far more of an impact than others. Eric
Brown told us that "by FAR [his emphasis], the Spitfire XIV was the
most outstanding British fighter of the war."


I believe Galland made the comment that the best thing about
the Mk XIV was that there were so few of them. I think about
860 produced for servive and perhaps jut over half that number in use
at one time. Most had clipped wings since it was feared that stresses
were to great.

The Mk XIV was an interim type: till the Mk XVIII introduced a tapered
stainless steel spar for extra strenght while the parrallel Mk 20
received a completely new wing of much stiffer structure to reduce
aeroeleasticity and thereby increase roll rate.




For "best fighter of
the war", he left absolutely no doubt, stating that "...with the Me
262, it was apparent after a few flights that we were... years behind
in fighter development." He felt it was a superb fighter with good
range for the day, a remarkably heavy armament, and few vices.

Mosquito; night bomber, night fighter, fast day bomber and most
importanty reconaisance aircraft par excellance.


I think the amount of damage it did as an Intruder and marking targets
for Main Force heavies cannot be underestimated either.

Lancaster; easy to fly, devastating war load.
Wellington: Britains Medium bomber and an important coastal command
aircraft.


Strange to see the Wimpy in here but we simply must include something
from Mr. Wallis.

He 111: early bombing workhorse


Redundant, I think, if you are including the Ju on your list, as it
was clearly superior in all regards.

Do 217 Only 1200 produced but still effective as a night bomber and
guided missile carrier.


very few successes in this role. As a night bomber, it was
inefficient and could not survive most attacks. I think the Ju 88 was
"Essential", and the Do was not.

Might Have
Me 210/410 Quite a good aircraft that was to replace the Ju 88 and
Me 110. Fast, advanced armament, bomb bay, efficient etc but simply
too late due to programm mismanagment to survive in allied skies.


Strongly disagree. I have known Me 210 / 410 pilots and they thought
the 210 was "ghastly" "horrible to fly", and the 410 was "too complex;
filled with gadgets" although the Gruppe commander of the
Schnellbombers said he really thought the glass panel between the feet
was an excellent idea. I don't know what role the 210/410s filled
that other aircraft could not have done better.


Complexity was the way to go; the remote control guns needed even more
complexity; computers to calculate lead I think. However I note that
LeMay insisted that his escorts fly ahead of the B-29 to prevent head
on an side attacks. The computers dealt well with tail attacks only.




He 219; succombed to political problems; an excellent night fighter
and unlike the Me 110 and early Ju 88 it had the speed to chase down
British bombers once diversionary raids and feints had been
ascertained.


I think it was essential, just stupidly ignored.

He 177: engine problems were not tackled agressively. The B series
with 4 seperate engines could have made up the bulk of production and
provided the Luftwaffe with a reliable long range bomber of
exceptional performance
had courage preceded arse covering.


By the time it matured into an effective bomber, its bases were under
Allied-controlled skies, making good use impossible. Germany needed a
heavy bomber in 1940-41; by 1944, they were just targets for roving
Allied fighters.


Perhaps some use against convoys where the Fw 200 was inadquete and
against the Soviet unions ural factories.



USA:


Essential:


P-40 USAAF effective fighter of excellent quality; it was quite
effective with appropriate tactics.


What a lot of people don't fully realize is that this aircraft was
just about all we had for the first two years of the war, and it
remained in service long after it was made obsolete by others. Until
the unready P-38s and the thirsty P-47Cs came along, P-40s were just
about it!


Clive Caldwell showed it could be deadly against the Me 109.


P-38 Had the range and performance to protect US bombers. It
prevented the German Airforce from fielding heavy aircraft firing
rockets, or impunely attacking bombers under the protection of heavy
armour.


Hmmmmm... It seems in my memory that the rocket-firing German
fighters were mostly treated roughly by P-47s and the gunners aboard
the heavy bombers.

B-17 Hightly survivable high altitude bomber.
B-24 Longer ranged then the B-17; its only virtue.


Greater warload as well. I think these were both essential.

B-25 Versatile and easy to fly in all theatres of war.
Wildcat, Hellcat, dauntless, avenger


Not sure if we actually "needed" the Avenger. The IJN was primarily
bombed out of existance, not torpedoed out of existance (not counting
the tremendous job done by the Silent Service, of course).

P-47 Ready far earlier than the P-51.


Non Essential
B-26 not as versatile as the B-25 and for a medium bomber too
demanding of runway conditions.


But faster, which is important if you are in amongst enemy fighters.


I think the versions with the extended span, the b-26G was no faster.
What if a PW2800 was placed aboard the B-25 instead of the CW2600.


Helldiver: too many handling problems.


Blew. Only "replacement aircraft" that I know of that was taken out
of service and "replaced" by the aircraft it was supposed to replace.
Crews called it "the Beast", and I have to date never met anyone that
liked it in any way.


Yet it eventually sank the Yamato using vertical 90 degree dives



P-51; the P-38 had sufficient range to cover untill the P-47M with a
wett wing which actually
could excede the range of the P-51.


Cost and battlefield effectiveness - P-38s would have had a very
difficult time against airfield defenses and in other roles where the
51 excelled. Primarily, the P-51 beat everyone else in its fielded
numbers; what is better, five squadrons of P-38s or 25 squadrons of
Mustangs, with a much higher sortie rate and far lower price tag?

Vought corsair: took to long to perfect for carrier opperations;


A Navy Captain told me, "That _____-___ ____ of ____ wasn't worth the
trouble - we were forced to take it by politicians." He was a loyal
Grumman customer and saw no need whatever for the F4U.

Hellcat did a good enough job.


You have a talent for understatement.

Had the Ki 84 been available in
numbers and supplied with 100/130 octane fuel the corsair would have
been essential


naaaaa.


Ki 84 did 430 mph when run on US f100/130 fuel.



Japan:


Essential:


Mitsubishi A6M zero and Betty.
Dinah, Ki 84


Non essential
All army types apart from the dinah and Ki 84


Soviet Union


Essential


Illushian Sturmovik, Pekelatov Pe2, Tupolev Tu 4, I-16


The last LaGG and the Yak 9 absolutely should be on your list.

v/r
Gordon





  #17  
Old October 3rd 07, 01:28 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval
Peter Skelton
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 93
Default Essential and Dispensible WW2 aircraft.

On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 04:44:52 -0700, Eunometic
wrote:

On Oct 3, 7:41 am, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:
"Eunometic" wrote in message

ps.com...



Essential and Dispensible WW2 aircraft.
***********************************************
I've created a list of aircraft of WW2 that were essential to that
side and also others that were dispensible in the sense that their
place could easily have been taken by other aircraft or that were so
ineffective that they were not needed at all.


A great deal of effort was spent on aircraft that did not perform and
were 'war loosers' while there was also a great deal of duplication of
effort on aircraft that added nothing special and detracted from gains
in production.


United Kingdom


Essential:
Hurricane; had to be avialable in numbers for battle of britain
Spitfire; had to provide quality fighter throughout the war an
amenable to all rolls.
Mosquito; night bomber, night fighter, fast day bomber and most
importanty reconaisance aircraft par excellance.
Lancaster; easy to fly, devastating war load.
Wellington: Britains Medium bomber and an important coastal command
aircraft.


Non Essential:
Beaufighter; not a useless aircraft as it could take damage but its
roll could have been taken by others. It kept bristol busy.


I strongly disagree. It played an essential role both as a nightfighter and
in the shipping strike role in the ETO and their long range made
them extremely valuable ground attack aircraft in the far east


It's contemporary the the Mosquito could also do that job, and much
better at that.
What I don't like about it was that if confronted by german airforce
day fighters it was
in deep trouble. It needed an escort; whereas the mosquito coastal
command aircraft actualy took on Fw 190.
If given a choice of choosing between 1000 extra Mosquito vs 1000 less
beaufighter?

Beaufighter in service date Oct. '40, Mosquito in-service date
almost exactly a year later. The Mosquito used merlin engines, a
crucial supply item until some time in '43


Peter Skelton
  #18  
Old October 3rd 07, 02:08 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval
Eunometic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 65
Default Essential and Dispensible WW2 aircraft.

On Oct 3, 1:34 pm, wrote:
There are some real whoppers in your list, and critical omissions too. I'll
concentrate on the USA, which I know best:

USA

On 2-Oct-2007, Eunometic wrote:

P-38 Had the range and performance to protect US bombers. It
prevented the German Airforce from fielding heavy aircraft firing
rockets, or impunely attacking bombers under the protection of heavy
armour.


TOTALLY WRONG. The P-38 was a FAILURE in the ETO, due to poor high altitude
performance from defective engines and unreliable turbosuperchargers. Its
unheated cockpits were another significant liability because of their effect
on pilot performance. It was a long-range wonder in the Pacific, where it
fought at lower altitudes, but was a failure in the ETO.


This problem got down to california being warmer in winter than
germany at 25,000ft. The coolant oil congealed due to excess cold.
There was predetonation at altitude due to excess cooling in the
intercoolers forcing to much air into the engines. Both problems were
sovled.


One one think that improving cockpit heating should have been easier
than converting the P-51 to take a merlin or to add a bubble canopy
and a rear fueselage tank. P-47 water ethanol injection system blew
up due to ice formation for similar reasons and was unusable.

The real reason the P-38 was transfered to the Pacific theater is
because it was in high demand over the not becuase it was a
failure.

In the end the the P-38L-1-LO, could claim a combat radius of nearly
1,500 miles under ideal conditions which was far further than any P-51
could conceivably achieve.


In parallel with this is your assertion that the P-51 was "not essential."
Only the P-51 had the necessary escort range. Without it the daylight
bombing campaign would have failed in late 1943. Moreover, the 51
outperformed virtually all-prop driven Axis fighters. This aircraft won the
air war for the Allies in the ETO.

One statistic says it all. In 1945 the only 8th AF fighter group still
flying the P-47 was the 56th FG. All others flew the 51. This wasn't an
accident. BTW, the "wet wing" P-47Ms you tout had huge engine reliability
problems, which kept them grounded most of the time.


I actually meant the P-47N as this was the model with the wing
tankage. It could fly 2000 miles with 300 miles and 20 minutes
combate at full power and 5 minutes a WEP. Further than any P-51.

The P-38 and P-47 were available earlier. The P-51C carried its fuel
in its wings; the P-51D added a big tank in the tail that made it
unstable and uncombatworthy to fly. The P-47 carried its tankage in
its fueselage. This was increased progressively in the latter P-47D
models and when the P-47N arrived it to carried fuel in wings that
must have been as thick as the P-51s and had a better range to boot.

As far as I can tell Happy Arnolds directive to Spaatz to develop long
range escorts didn't specify Mustangs.

The Mustang was a fine plane but I think the P-38 and P-47 could have
done the job if pressed a little more than they were.



A truly essential aircraft you overlook was the C-47 transport. "General
Dwight Eisenhower described the C-47 as one of the four machines that won
World War II, along with the bulldozer, 6x6 truck, and the landing craft."http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avc47.html


The Germans built 3000 transports while the Allies about 50,000.
Logistics wins.



In the Pacific the early "essentials" were the Wildcat and the Dauntless.

JAPAN

In addition to the A6M Zero, I think you also need to include the two other
carrier aircraft Japan possessed at the outset: the "Val" dive bomber and
the "Kate" torpedo/level bomber. All three were essential to Japanese naval
air power, even after defeat at Midway.

I'm not sure any Japanese twin engine bomber was "essential." They all had
fatal design flaws (lack of armor and flammability) that made them little
more than flying targets. The Japanese air war was first won, then lost, by
their single engine aircraft.

Speaking of which, I don't see the Army Ki-84 as essential. IMHO that
plaudit goes the the Nakajima Hayabusa Ki-43, which like the Zero served
throughout the entire war.

USSR

I don't think you can exclude the Yak fighters, especially the Yak-9. I
will also include a surprising choice for an "essential" Soviet A/C: the
Bell P-39. It is remarkable how many Soviet aces not only flew that
aircraft, but greatly favored it.


If you placed a russian or german aircraft next to a US one the build
quality of the US one would show in beautifull detail such as the
clarity of the plastic and glass.



My comments, FWIW.

Brian



  #19  
Old October 3rd 07, 02:10 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval
Eunometic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 65
Default Essential and Dispensible WW2 aircraft.

On Oct 3, 8:09 pm, The Amaurotean Capitalist
wrote:
On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 05:06:23 -0700, Eunometic
wrote:

P-51; the P-38 had sufficient range to cover untill the P-47M with a
wett wing which actually
could excede the range of the P-51.


The P-47N wasn't available until nearly a year and a half after the
P-51B; good luck trying to sell a long-range P-47 available in
mid-1945 to Arnold when he demanded a long-range escort fighter for
the ETO in mid-1943.

Gavin Bailey


Yes but the P-47B or P-47C didn't have the tail tank and therefor
range yet.

If pressed to find a solution to extra tankage it would have been
possible to introduce a tanked wing earlier i feel.

  #20  
Old October 3rd 07, 02:38 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval
Eunometic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 65
Default Essential and Dispensible WW2 aircraft.

On Oct 3, 8:00 am, "rob" wrote:
"Eunometic" wrote

Essential
Wellington: Britains Medium bomber and an important coastal command
aircraft.


For a short while, they probably wouldn't have missed it had it not been
designed.


I was suprised to learn that the Whitley had actually lower attrition
since it had been designed for night opperations from the start and
also did the u-boat patrol business.





Non Essential:
Beaufighter;


Invaluable in the anti-shipping role. Made a large if not desicive
contribution to the campaign in N Africa by interdicting Rommels supplies.



I'm slowly getting convinced that it was essential but retain doubts.

Had the Luftwaffe been on the ball it should have failed.


Tempest and Typhoon
Wasn't the Tempest the quickest thing the RAF had for a while?


Clostermann talks of it doing something like 460mph TAS at 3000ft I
think. Not that I believe that.

The 1942 Mk XII spit could chase down V1's.



Not inc
Meteor
These two types were very fine aircraft in the CAS and strike roles not to
mention all the V-1s the Tempest claimed. They probably wouldn't have been
missed much in the Air to Air role but unless you're putting iron on the
ground Air superiority is just for show thus I would say they were essential



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Two essential items... john smith Piloting 19 December 26th 06 02:48 AM
Delaware LLC Owned Aircraft California Based Aircraft ChrisEllis Piloting 6 January 17th 06 03:47 AM
Commercial rating: complex aircraft required aircraft for practical test? Marc J. Zeitlin Piloting 22 November 24th 05 04:11 AM
Exclusive Custom Home Plans, and Essential information about building your New Home orange tree Home Built 4 November 20th 05 04:37 PM
Experience transitioning from C-172 to complex aircraft as potential first owned aircraft? Jack Allison Owning 12 June 14th 04 08:01 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:48 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.