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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Peter Stickney wrote:
In article , Guy Alcala writes: John Carrier wrote: Excellent post. I particularly liked the link to the USN tests. As the Corsair's opponent was almost exclusively Japanese, it must have been a revelation to find there was an airplane it could outturn (okay, there was the P-47). The impact of a weapon system with an effective range of perhaps 1500 feet skews the weighting of A/C performance characteristics quite a bit when compared to modern machinery. But then as now, speed was life. In fairness I should mention that Eric Brown, who'd flown all three extensively, reached a different conclusion than this USN comparison. Re the Corsair II (F4U-1A with clipped wingtips) vs. the FW-190A-4, he wrote: "This would be a contest between a heavyweight and a lightweight fighter, with virtually all the advantages on the side of the latter. Having flown both a/c a lot, I have no doubt as to which I would rather fly. The FW-190A-4 could not be bested by the Corsair. "Verdict: The FW-190A-4 was arguably the best piston-engine fighter of World War II [Note: he probably means the FW-190 series. Later in the book, when rating the best performing piston-fighters of WW2 , he rates the Spit XIV number one with the inline-engined FW-190D-9 just a nose behind, and the P-51D (Mustang IV) a tad behind that, deliberately ignoring operational issues such as range]. It is a clear winner in combat with the Corsair." F6F-3 vs. FW-190A-4: "This would be a showdown between two classic fighters. The German had a speed advantage of 30 mph, the American a slight advantage in climb. Both were very maneuverable* and both had heavy firepower. By 1944 the FW-190 was a little long in the tooth, while the Hellcat was a relative newcomer; still, the superb technology built into the German fighter by Kurt Tank was not outmoded. The Hellcat had broken the iron grip of the Zeke in the Far East, but the FW-190A-4 was a far tougher opponent. "Verdict: This was a contest so finely balanced that the skill of the pilot would probably be the deciding factor." *A somewhat odd statement, as the Hellcat had the typically mushy Grumman ailerons. But it could certainly out-turn the 190. Some of that may, repeat _may_ be personal preference sneaking in. I tend to agree, although I've also talked to a navy pilot who had considerable time in both who said that the Hellcat was superior. But like the pilot ratings at the fighter meets, subjectivity does creep in, which allows the same a/c's features to be rated both best of and worst of, with numerous pilots in each group. Still, Brown was a test pilot, and presumably a bit more objective than a line pilot, at least as far as flight characteristics went. Cdr Brown just plain didn't like the Corsair much at all, in any version. I agree, although I don't remember if he ever flew the ones with water injection etc. He certainly must have flown the ones with the improved oleos, raised seat, and stall strip. Reading his reports, I get the feeling that the Spitfire fit him just right, and that's what he was measuring against. He is a little guy, whereas Boone Guyton (Vought Corsair project pilot) was 6'4". (But not teh Seafire, particularly, he rates it last in "Duels in the Sky" for carrier-based fighters, due to its poor behavior around the boat. It would be interesting to see what his opinion was of the P-47, which was pretty similar to the Corsair in size & performance, albeit with better control harmony. While he certainly is Very British, he's not a blind chauvanist. Defintely not, when you consider his appreciation for Grumman products. And when he puts the Spit XIV and Mustang IV head to head, he rates them essentially equal in the air, with the Spit having a slight advantage if he was forced to chose. I do think he underrates the Mustang's affect on the European air war compared to the Hellcat's effect on the Pacific air war, in arriving at his final ranking. Guy |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Guy Alcala wrote: Peter Stickney wrote: In article , Guy Alcala writes: John Carrier wrote: Excellent post. I particularly liked the link to the USN tests. As the Corsair's opponent was almost exclusively Japanese, it must have been a revelation to find there was an airplane it could outturn (okay, there was the P-47). The impact of a weapon system with an effective range of perhaps 1500 feet skews the weighting of A/C performance characteristics quite a bit when compared to modern machinery. But then as now, speed was life. In fairness I should mention that Eric Brown, who'd flown all three extensively, reached a different conclusion than this USN comparison. Re the Corsair II (F4U-1A with clipped wingtips) vs. the FW-190A-4, he wrote: "This would be a contest between a heavyweight and a lightweight fighter, with virtually all the advantages on the side of the latter. Having flown both a/c a lot, I have no doubt as to which I would rather fly. The FW-190A-4 could not be bested by the Corsair. "Verdict: The FW-190A-4 was arguably the best piston-engine fighter of World War II [Note: he probably means the FW-190 series. Later in the book, when rating the best performing piston-fighters of WW2 , he rates the Spit XIV number one with the inline-engined FW-190D-9 just a nose behind, and the P-51D (Mustang IV) a tad behind that, deliberately ignoring operational issues such as range]. It is a clear winner in combat with the Corsair." F6F-3 vs. FW-190A-4: "This would be a showdown between two classic fighters. The German had a speed advantage of 30 mph, the American a slight advantage in climb. Both were very maneuverable* and both had heavy firepower. By 1944 the FW-190 was a little long in the tooth, while the Hellcat was a relative newcomer; still, the superb technology built into the German fighter by Kurt Tank was not outmoded. The Hellcat had broken the iron grip of the Zeke in the Far East, but the FW-190A-4 was a far tougher opponent. "Verdict: This was a contest so finely balanced that the skill of the pilot would probably be the deciding factor." *A somewhat odd statement, as the Hellcat had the typically mushy Grumman ailerons. But it could certainly out-turn the 190. Some of that may, repeat _may_ be personal preference sneaking in. I tend to agree, although I've also talked to a navy pilot who had considerable time in both who said that the Hellcat was superior. But like the pilot ratings at the fighter meets, subjectivity does creep in, which allows the same a/c's features to be rated both best of and worst of, with numerous pilots in each group. Still, Brown was a test pilot, and presumably a bit more objective than a line pilot, at least as far as flight characteristics went. Cdr Brown just plain didn't like the Corsair much at all, in any version. I agree, although I don't remember if he ever flew the ones with water injection etc. He certainly must have flown the ones with the improved oleos, raised seat, and stall strip. Reading his reports, I get the feeling that the Spitfire fit him just right, and that's what he was measuring against. He is a little guy, whereas Boone Guyton (Vought Corsair project pilot) was 6'4". (But not teh Seafire, particularly, he rates it last in "Duels in the Sky" for carrier-based fighters, due to its poor behavior around the boat. It would be interesting to see what his opinion was of the P-47, which was pretty similar to the Corsair in size & performance, albeit with better control harmony. While he certainly is Very British, he's not a blind chauvanist. Defintely not, when you consider his appreciation for Grumman products. And when he puts the Spit XIV and Mustang IV head to head, he rates them essentially equal in the air, with the Spit having a slight advantage if he was forced to chose. I do think he underrates the Mustang's affect on the European air war compared to the Hellcat's effect on the Pacific air war, in arriving at his final ranking. Guy Weren't the USN tests of the captured 190 in anticipation that the 190 had been sold to Japan and that Corsair and Hellcat pilots would encounter them in the Pacific? The 190 would have been a good carrier fighter had the Germans ever finished the Graf Zeppelin CV instead of listening to the Fat Boy and taking naval air from the Navy to the Luftwaffe. Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access! |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
In article 40b4d9c9$1@bg2.,
"Matt Wiser" writes: Weren't the USN tests of the captured 190 in anticipation that the 190 had been sold to Japan and that Corsair and Hellcat pilots would encounter them in the Pacific? The 190 would have been a good carrier fighter had the Germans ever finished the Graf Zeppelin CV instead of listening to the Fat Boy and taking naval air from the Navy to the Luftwaffe. No, not partiularly. Remember that at teh time that teh tests took place, we still hadn't invaded Normandy, or Southern France, and things were still cooking along in the Med. Since one of the salient traits of the Navy is the mobility of their airbases, it would be foolish to ignore the possibily of meeting 190s. As to the 190 being a good carrier fighter. No, I don't think so at all. It's behavior in the pattern was, for a carrier fighter, dismal at best, (High stall speed, no stall warning, and a nasty tendency to snap inverted when stalled in anythi8ng but straight & level flight) with no visibility of the deck from about halfway down the base leg. (Big engine, little canopy, with the pilot seated low down in the fuselage. While the gear was somewhat better laid out than the 109, it most likely wasn't strong enough to stand up to real carrier operations. Let's not forget that the rather small size of the German single engined fighters means that there's no volume available for fuel, so range/radius is dismal, and there isn't enough space to hang a lot of stuff on the outside of the airplane. This turns out to be a real problem with a Carrier Air Group. You've only got so much space to carry and move airplanes around on, so you need teh most flexibility that you can get out of an airplane. As for the Graf Zeppelin (Seagoing version) - if the Germans had completed her, it would have had as much effect on the War as it did as a hulk tied up to the pier. Carriers don't operate in isolation - they need a lot of support - Escorts for the carrier itself, a big train of Replenishment Ships, Oilers, and other such ships following it around and requiring excort themselves, and reliable, timely intelligence about what's going on around them. The Kreigsmarine was never, ever able to supply this, even if they were able to get their heads wrapped around it. (Which is rather doubtful - look at the way they used the few ships they had, ****ing them away in ones and twos on solo missions that, while they produced a bit of a flap as they were hunted down & sunk, did nothing to further German War Aims.) After the April 1940 Norway Campaign, the Germans ended up with no useful surface Navy at all. (Norway was nasty to the German Navy. They came out of the Norway Campaign with 3 ships that weren't in the yards for extensive repairs that put them out of action for the rest of the year. They also had some very real problems with basic technology. Their high pressure/high temperature machinery was supposed to produce a more compact, lighter, adn more economical power plant. They never got them to work properly, and what they achieved as a temendous amount of skill at rigging towlines. Their Light Cruisers, which was the basis for the Graf Zeppelin's hull, were so structurally weak that they couldn't be allowed out of the Baltic. Graf Zeppelin herself was the product of a flawed concept - she combined the airgroup of an Escort Carrier (even worse than that, since the range/radius of the airplanes was so limited) with the armament of a small light cruiser. Just what was it supposed to do? -- Pete Stickney A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many bad measures. -- Daniel Webster |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Did Hellcats and Corsairs meet FW-190s in combat in the invasion of Southern
France, in 1944? DEP |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Peter Stickney wrote:
In article 40b4d9c9$1@bg2., "Matt Wiser" writes: Weren't the USN tests of the captured 190 in anticipation that the 190 had been sold to Japan and that Corsair and Hellcat pilots would encounter them in the Pacific? The 190 would have been a good carrier fighter had the Germans ever finished the Graf Zeppelin CV instead of listening to the Fat Boy and taking naval air from the Navy to the Luftwaffe. No, not partiularly. Remember that at teh time that teh tests took place, we still hadn't invaded Normandy, or Southern France, and things were still cooking along in the Med. Since one of the salient traits of the Navy is the mobility of their airbases, it would be foolish to ignore the possibily of meeting 190s. As to the 190 being a good carrier fighter. No, I don't think so at all. It's behavior in the pattern was, for a carrier fighter, dismal at best, (High stall speed, no stall warning, and a nasty tendency to snap inverted when stalled in anythi8ng but straight & level flight) with no visibility of the deck from about halfway down the base leg. Pete, they would have needed to reduce the stall speed (probably by increasing the wingspan/area, and maybe a change in flaps), but unlike its clean stall its dirty stall behavior was good, according to Brown: "The stall in landing configuration was quite different, there being intense pre-stall buffeting before the starboard wing dropped comparatively gently at 120 mph [Guy: vs. 127 mph clean]. "Approach speed for the terminal phase of landing was 125mph. View on the approach was decidely poor, because the attitude with power on was rather flat [Guy: definitely needed more flap to steepen the approach and/or lower the nose] and, to avoid the risk of exhaust fumes entering the cockpit, the canopy had to remain closed. Anything less than a perfect three-pointer produced a reaction from the nonresilient landing gear. The landing run was short and the brakes could be applied harshly without fear of nosing over." Clearly something would have to be done about the exhaust fumes, because lacking an ejection seat you've got to be able to approach with the canopy open. As for the rest, it seems no worse than a Seafire except for the approach/stall speeds, and those would be relatively easy to decrease (with a commensurate decrease in top speed at lower altitudes owing to drag of the larger wing, say something like the Ta-152H, but a better ceiling). Roll rate would also decrease, but the 190's got a lot of that to spare. The landing gear rebound ratios would also need improvement ala' the Corsair (and Sea Hurricane, and Seafire). (Big engine, little canopy, with the pilot seated low down in the fuselage. While the gear was somewhat better laid out than the 109, it most likely wasn't strong enough to stand up to real carrier operations. It's unlikely to be weaker than the Seafire's. Let's not forget that the rather small size of the German single engined fighters means that there's no volume available for fuel, so range/radius is dismal, and there isn't enough space to hang a lot of stuff on the outside of the airplane. This turns out to be a real problem with a Carrier Air Group. You've only got so much space to carry and move airplanes around on, so you need teh most flexibility that you can get out of an airplane. The FW-190 had considerably more internal fuel than the Seafire II/III, 140.8 imp. gallons vs. 85, and seems to have had slightly better range. Even the Seafire, with 85 Imp. gal. internal plus a 90 gallon drop tank, is credited with an escort radius (initial climb, combat and landing reserves) of 265nm @ 182 kts (81nm radius without the drop tank). In addition to all the fighter bomber versions, the Germans were looking to hang a torp on the carrier version of the 190, turning it into the strike fighter par excellence. Of course, if the Graf Zeppelin would have entered service earlier the attack a/c would have been the Stuka, which not only outperformed the Skua and Barracuda and had comparable performance with the SBD and Val, but carried a far heavier payload (with torps planned for the Ju-87C). In 1940/41, even the Stuka, used as a fighter, would run rings around a Swordfish or Albacore, and outgunned and out-armored them both. Fulmars could catch them and the Skua could just do so (if the Stuka was loaded; clean, it was faster). It's prowess as a dive bomber against ships was demonstrated from Norway on, and the presence of the GZ with the Bismarck/PE might have saved the Bismarck (not to mention sinking damaging other British capital ships/carriers/cruisers that were chasing/shadowing her). If they'd had ME-109Ts on board, then the Fulmars/Skuas are toast, at least until the last 109s are lost in landing accidents (judging by the Seafire's problems, this would only take a few days of intensive ops, although the Graf would have been a lot bigger and faster than the CVEs that suffered the worst Seafire crash rates). As for the Graf Zeppelin (Seagoing version) - if the Germans had completed her, it would have had as much effect on the War as it did as a hulk tied up to the pier. Carriers don't operate in isolation - they need a lot of support - Escorts for the carrier itself, Bismarck and Prince Eugen would have been adequate in 1941. a big train of Replenishment Ships, Oilers, and other such ships following it around and requiring excort themselves, Not on a raiding mission. B and PE as well as the earlier raiders managed with replenishment ships that hid out and operated solo. Most were eventually tracked down due to ULTRA, but an American level fleet train wasn't a necessity. and reliable, timely intelligence about what's going on around them. Sure would help if the surface raiders had a carrier that could do all-around searches out 100-300nm (never mind attacks) in most weather, instead of a few floatplanes that couldn't be used in moderately heavy seas. And the German B-dienst was quite effective up until 1943 or so. The Kreigsmarine was never, ever able to supply this, even if they were able to get their heads wrapped around it. And having a carrier would have helped their tactical intelligence considerably. (Which is rather doubtful - look at the way they used the few ships they had, ****ing them away in ones and twos on solo missions that, while they produced a bit of a flap as they were hunted down & sunk, did nothing to further German War Aims.) Many of these missions due to Hitler's restrictions, especially the one that imposed restrictions on the Tirpitz if a british carrier were thought to be in the anywhere near the area (this after a failed attack on Tirpitz by a dozen Albacores from Victorious). After the April 1940 Norway Campaign, the Germans ended up with no useful surface Navy at all. (Norway was nasty to the German Navy. They came out of the Norway Campaign with 3 ships that weren't in the yards for extensive repairs that put them out of action for the rest of the year. Sure did. Of course, having a carrier would have limited their losses and increased those of the British, who only had Furious, Glorious and Ark Royal, not all available simultaneously. They also had some very real problems with basic technology. Their high pressure/high temperature machinery was supposed to produce a more compact, lighter, adn more economical power plant. They never got them to work properly, and what they achieved as a temendous amount of skill at rigging towlines. Their Light Cruisers, which was the basis for the Graf Zeppelin's hull, were so structurally weak that they couldn't be allowed out of the Baltic. Graf Zeppelin herself was the product of a flawed concept - she combined the airgroup of an Escort Carrier (even worse than that, since the range/radius of the airplanes was so limited) with the armament of a small light cruiser. Just what was it supposed to do? Pete, I'll have to disagree. GZ would have had at least as much to do as the British fleet carriers did. Graf Zeppelin's proposed operational air group (40 IIRR) was larger than Furious, Glorious, or the Illustrious class, and her flight deck would have been larger than any of them. Only Ark Royal would have been noticeably better in designed capacity, but GZ could have deck-parked more a/c, assuming she had the necessary barriers. And her a/c would have been equal/superior to the British ones, at least up until 1943 or so. As to the separate surface/AA armament, it was quite common in the first generation carriers, especially those of the Europeans (cf. Hermes and Eagle), and for good reason pre-radar. They were far more likely to run into surface ships by accident when not flying (as did Glorious, although that was more negligence) than enemy carriers, but mostly they would have been chased by cruisers. GZ, Furious and her half-sisters could outrun almost everything else except a few battlecruisers and the fastest new treaty battleships, so they needed anti-cruiser armament (just as the Lexingtons had, and even the Midways almost had 8" guns -- Mitscher among others wanted them). Undoubtedly GZ's 5.9" battery would have been progressively reduced/replaced by more 4.1" and 20/37mm as time went on, just as every other combatant modified their CVs. But her initial planned medium AA armament wasn't bad for the era; IIRR 12 (6 x 2) 4.1" guns. In short, assuming (a really big if) that the Germans had completed GZ in time for Norway or the Bismarck breakout and been able to work her up to a useful operational level, she might well have played an important/decisive role, causing Hitler to authorize more of them. Or she might have been lost to mishap early on ( say a sub torp like Courageous), and things would have progressed as they in fact did. But given my caveat above, I think there's no question how useful she _could have been_ to the Germans, considering the large positive effect the possession of quite limited carriers had for the BB-based British fleet in the same period. Always assuming the Germans used her properly, of course; the british had already demonstrated a couple of ways (Courageous and Glorious) -Not- to use CVs. Guy |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
"David E. Powell" wrote:
Did Hellcats and Corsairs meet FW-190s in combat in the invasion of Southern France, in 1944? Checking John Winton's "Find, Fix and Strike," it appears that there was little German reaction, and the only combat was between a few Do-217s and Ju-88s and some Seafires and Hellcats. There dont appear to have been any Corsairs involved, just Seafies, Martlets, and one squadron of Hellcats (800 Sq. on HMS Emperor). Corsairs and Hellcats participated in the series of attacks on the Tirpitz in 1944, but air combat seems to have been limited. Guy |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
"David E. Powell" wrote: Did Hellcats and Corsairs meet FW-190s in combat in the invasion of Southern France, in 1944? DEP Only Air-to-Air the Hellcats in ANVIL-DRAGOON were against Ju-52s, Ju-88s, and He-111s. Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access! |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Hiroshima/Nagasaki vs conventional B-17 bombing | zxcv | Military Aviation | 55 | April 4th 04 07:05 AM |
Good Ad! WWII Pilot | Joe | Military Aviation | 0 | January 11th 04 09:37 PM |
P-47/51 deflection shots into the belly of the German tanks,reality | ArtKramr | Military Aviation | 131 | September 7th 03 09:02 PM |
FA: WWII B-3jacket, B-1 pants, Class A uniform | N329DF | Military Aviation | 1 | August 16th 03 03:41 PM |