The aerial warfare thread.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
31-03-2016, 09:14 PM
RE: The aeiral warfare thread.
I worked under IR344 (A military Training Route) for a few years in the 90's.
https://skyvector.com/?ll=46.46170072432...301&zoom=1
We had regular Navy A6 overflights at 500' AGl. One day I was out of my equipment and an F-111 came thundering through the valley at less than 300' ! He disappeared behind this small hill, then popped up about 30 degrees nose up and did a victory roll.
I also went out on search and rescue for those A-6's, they had a malfunction that put them in the dirt rather quickly. Things happen fast at 500' and 400 knots.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like skyking's post
31-03-2016, 09:17 PM
RE: The aeiral warfare thread.
We had F-111's in the RAAF. I recall a great demo at Sale AFB in Victoria in the early 70's. Complete with low flights and afterburner. Smile

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-03-2016, 11:47 PM
RE: The aeiral warfare thread.
[Image: IM000696.jpg~original]

[Image: DSCN0256.jpg~original]

FW190 taxiing

B17 Vs FW190

Me109

Me109 & Me 262

Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Deesse23's post
01-04-2016, 12:25 AM
RE: The aeiral warfare thread.
(13-02-2016 07:01 AM)onlinebiker Wrote:  
(13-02-2016 06:54 AM)adey67 Wrote:  That was one agile aircraft to be sure, if its armament had been heaver I think things would have been even worse for the allies.

The reason it was agile is it was light.

If you started adding armor, guns and ammo - it would have lost it's only advantage.


Besides -- once the P-38 got to about the J variant - it was completely outclassed with two pilots of equal skill.....

According to Martin Caidin, the -J model P-38, equipped with so-called "combat flaps" extensible at speed, could turn inside an FW-190 in most flight regimes, including low-level, which is where the Lightning had its bread-and-butter.

Certainly couldn't do that against Japanese aircraft, but it didn't need to -- against them, boom-and-zoom was the best tactic.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Thumpalumpacus's post
01-04-2016, 12:58 AM
RE: The aeiral warfare thread.
The 190 wasnt designed for sustained turns, and so was the P38. So sustained turn rate means not a lot, particularly to those two planes.
What they both excelled in, due to their hydraulic operated ailerons, was a high maneuverability in general (all three planes), not *only* in the horizontal plane

High maneuverability doesnt necessarily mean "high sustained turn rate". Wich a high roll rate you can do YoYos to change your direction quite quickly, without even losing much energy.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Deesse23's post
01-04-2016, 01:07 AM
RE: The aeiral warfare thread.
Yeah, I wasn't talking about sustained rate, which is more a function of wing-loading. Combat flaps which decrease turn radius decrease sustained rate as well, due to airspeed loss.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-04-2016, 01:18 AM
RE: The aeiral warfare thread.
I've read a LOT of Luftwaffe pilot memoirs and they did not consider the P38 much at all other than an easy kill. And I recall Tom Blackburn in his book about his Marine Corsair squadron saying "The only thing we ever saw of the P38's was their drop tanks falling through our flights" or something like that.

It did prove to be a good recon' aircraft and night fighter though.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-04-2016, 01:45 AM
RE: The aeiral warfare thread.
The P38 was a great design. 2 Engines made for a safe return once one engine was shot up, good payload, good visibility, streamlined. It was the first long range escort the allies had. The Spit didnt come near that. Without the P38, the bombing campaign would have even been a lot worse than it actually was until late 1943.
It was too expensive thou. I read somewhere that for each P38, two P47s or P51s could be build, which were even better at escorting bombers. In A2G is finally proved how useful its payload was (western theatre). It definitely wasnt made for *clasisc* dogfights, chasing your own tail, it was simply too large. But in the east it showed what you can do with such a design if used properly.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Deesse23's post
01-04-2016, 02:30 AM
RE: The aeiral warfare thread.
(01-04-2016 01:18 AM)Banjo Wrote:  I've read a LOT of Luftwaffe pilot memoirs and they did not consider the P38 much at all other than an easy kill. And I recall Tom Blackburn in his book about his Marine Corsair squadron saying "The only thing we ever saw of the P38's was their drop tanks falling through our flights" or something like that.

It did prove to be a good recon' aircraft and night fighter though.

In NW Europe, the P-38 was at a disadvantage due to its engines, which didn't get along with the cold air at the altitudes the bombers it originally escorted flew. Many sorties were shortened by engine failures, meaning that the surviving escorts had smaller numbers, which of course tells in combat.

The Marine Corsairs only saw drop-tanks because in the warmer Pacific, the P-38 didn't have nearly the engine problems, and with their tremendous dive speed, made for excellent top-cover. So on a typical fighter sweep, you'd see NZ P-40s or American Wildcats at low altitude, covered by Marine Corsairs at medium altitude, in turn covered by USAAF P-38s at high altitude, where they could boom-and-zoom with ease.

The big problem with the P-38, and any twin-engined fighter, was simply that it presented a larger target. It was also easily identifiable, meaning that opposing pilots could choose to engage or disengage at farther ranges depending on favorable or unfavorable circumstances.

Also, a small correction: it wasn't the addition of combat flaps, but rather, hydraulic boosting of the existing flaps, that gave the -J model its greater maneuverability. Apologies for the misstatement.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Thumpalumpacus's post
01-04-2016, 03:43 AM
RE: The aeiral warfare thread.
(01-04-2016 02:30 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  
(01-04-2016 01:18 AM)Banjo Wrote:  I've read a LOT of Luftwaffe pilot memoirs and they did not consider the P38 much at all other than an easy kill. And I recall Tom Blackburn in his book about his Marine Corsair squadron saying "The only thing we ever saw of the P38's was their drop tanks falling through our flights" or something like that.

It did prove to be a good recon' aircraft and night fighter though.

In NW Europe, the P-38 was at a disadvantage due to its engines, which didn't get along with the cold air at the altitudes the bombers it originally escorted flew. Many sorties were shortened by engine failures, meaning that the surviving escorts had smaller numbers, which of course tells in combat.

The Marine Corsairs only saw drop-tanks because in the warmer Pacific, the P-38 didn't have nearly the engine problems, and with their tremendous dive speed, made for excellent top-cover. So on a typical fighter sweep, you'd see NZ P-40s or American Wildcats at low altitude, covered by Marine Corsairs at medium altitude, in turn covered by USAAF P-38s at high altitude, where they could boom-and-zoom with ease.

The big problem with the P-38, and any twin-engined fighter, was simply that it presented a larger target. It was also easily identifiable, meaning that opposing pilots could choose to engage or disengage at farther ranges depending on favorable or unfavorable circumstances.

Also, a small correction: it wasn't the addition of combat flaps, but rather, hydraulic boosting of the existing flaps, that gave the -J model its greater maneuverability. Apologies for the misstatement.

No need to apologize. I am enjoying your posts.

I love the P38. If memory serves, the RAAF had some. I have a lovely unbuillt kit. If I get back into making models I will build it with love. Smile

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Banjo's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: