A Wilder Wildcat

[Llewwyy]

As you said the superior range of the P-51B/C/D took them to where their prey was. By late 1943 most of the Luftwaffe fighter force was based in Germany beyond the range of the P-47D. Without a doubt the Mustang was more maneuverable, with a better rate of climb, and better acceleration. For its part the Thunderbolt was almost as fast in level flight, was faster in a dive, had a very fast rate of role, was more rugged, and had heavier fire power. The USAAF thought enough of the P-47 to order the N version with a wet wing with the range needed for operations in the Pacific that was as fast as the P-51H.

The P47 was fast in a dive but not necessarily recoverable from it. One of Winkle Brown's jobs was to investigate why P47 and P38s were making so many large holes in the European landscape. ME109s, FW190, P51s and Spitfires do not have this issue according to Brown.

 

[tomo pauk]

The P47 was fast in a dive but not necessarily recoverable from it. One of Winkle Brown's jobs was to investigate why P47 and P38s were making so many large holes in the European landscape.

Yes, P-51 was faster in dive and more controllable.
When was Brown given the job to investigate the problems in high-speed dive of the US fighters?

 

[DougM]

Yes an inline engine makes in general a better Fighter (for dog fights/intercept not ground or ship attack) but it is more complicated and typicalky less reliable and or survivable vs minor damage.

But you cant HAVE an inline Wildcat for several valid reasons.
1) When the Wildcat first went into design the navy had no experience with inline engine. Thus you would need to do a major overhaul on traing, supply and everything that goes with it in order to accommodate 1 aircraft.
2) you now need to keep support parts and support crews for two different technologies on an aircraft carrier. Yes the Army Airforce did this but they have nice big bases with as much room as they want to take. Not tiny Carriers.
3) No great option for inline engines exists in the US at the time the wildcat was designed. The famed Merlin was not in service with the US and was only early days in GB.
4) You want to balance you engine production as much as you can so useing different types where you can is your best option.
5) When the Merlin did become available it was in short supply so trying yo add the navy to list of users is a bad idea.

I tgink this whole idea of a better Wildcat has one huge flaw. Remember the old saying …”Perfect is the enemy of good enough”. you are better off with a “Good Enough” Wildcat when we got it then delaying for a Wildercat. Even a couple months difference could have huge knock on effects.
And the US never did get a Wildercat. it was called the Hellcat. And it got better fighters. The Corsair, and the Bearcat and the Tigercat to name three. Admitidly the last two were late. But if the Hellcat sucked and could not get the job done then the Navy would not have pitched a fit over landing Corsairs on flight deck something the RN was doing. And they could have pushed the priority on the Bearcat and Tigarcat or even went with the funny look F5.

So being as they did none of the above (especially as the pushed the Corsair off to land bases) this tells me that the Hellcat was getting the job done and that the complications and delays an inline fighter would have entailed were not needed. And the loss of those inline engines for use elsewhere was not justified.

 

[Llewwyy]

Yes, P-51 was faster in dive and more controllable.
When was Brown given the job to investigate the problems in high-speed dive of the US fighters?

According to the interview, it was prior to the introduction of the P51 and after the 8th airforce started their campaign, so 1943. The research had something to do with a useable mach number. The Spitfire was around .92 while the P47 was about .78. I think the German planes, ME 109, FW 190, measured around .86 as I recall. He did this at Farnsboro with fully instrumented aircraft. They were asked to investigate after it was noted that the U.S. fighters would dive on the German ones and keep going, basically into the ground. The interview was posted on the internet.

 

[tomo pauk]

According to the interview, it was prior to the introduction of the P51 and after the 8th airforce started their campaign, so 1943. The research had something to do with a useable mach number. The Spitfire was around .92 while the P47 was about .78. I think the German planes, ME 109, FW 190, measured around .86 as I recall. He did this at Farnsboro with fully instrumented aircraft. They were asked to investigate after it was noted that the U.S. fighters would dive on the German ones and keep going, basically into the ground. The interview was posted on the internet.

Thank you.
Brown's research is pre-dated by NACA's testing of the YP-38's aerodynamic qualities and the problems with 'Mach tuck', the test being conducted during the winter of 1941/42, that resulted in two things - fitting of the LE fillet, and placard being attached into the cockpit warning the pilots about the allowed mach number at different altitude bands. Dive flaps for both P-38 and P-47 were in design phase by the time Merlin Mustang was to enter the fight, ie. by late 1943.
Americans knew all too well about the problem before Brown was set to investigate.

@EverKing probably forgotten about this than I know; his thread in this forum.

 

[muddyleathers]

I wish you guys would give up on this shit. An air-cooled engine has one system less with multiple points of failure, to bring down a plane in a limited supply than an air cooled craft. Various performance characteristics aside, the golden bb still exists, and having the extra vulnerabilities of the cooling system increase the odds of the bb. If you really want to start an argument, lets compare return rates of aviators lost at sea in the pacific vs those lost over nazi occupied europe.

 

[tomo pauk]

If you really want to start an argument, lets compare return rates of aviators lost at sea in the pacific vs those lost over nazi occupied europe.

Okay. Let's see your data.

 

[Llewwyy]

Is that going to include P38s, P40s and P51s, all inline powered? All 3 flew at low to medium altitude in the pacific. There was a program that was looking at how Bomber Command was determining what to protect on the damaged bombers. One argument was that they should protect the areas that were frequently damaged. The opposite argument was made that if the plane made it back, the areas that are damaged are the ones that least need protection. The areas that need protection are the places that were not damaged.

 

[muddyleathers]

Okay. Let's see your data.

I asked you first.

 

[Sekhmet_D]

If you really want to start an argument, lets compare return rates of aviators lost at sea in the pacific vs those lost over nazi occupied europe.

Can this solely be put down to engine failure? Or is it simply because Nazi occupied Europe was a more severe hotbed of interceptors and AA defences?

 

[tomo pauk]

I asked you first.

We're not in the 3rd grade.
You've tried to steer the debate in whatever the direction you like it, meaning that the ball is on your half of the playing field, not mine.

 

[muddyleathers]

We're not in the 3rd grade.
You've tried to steer the debate in whatever the direction you like it, meaning that the ball is on your half of the playing field, not mine.

To be honest, I do not give one flying fornicating god damn. You seem to be incapable of admitting that adding an additional operational circuit to an engine makes it more prone to failure, more difficult to maintain, and uses more consumables on a limited storage platform (aircraft carrier), and I am sick of listening to this.

 

[Belisarius II]

Yes, P-51 was faster in dive and more controllable.
When was Brown given the job to investigate the problems in high-speed dive of the US fighters?

Respectfully I believe you're misinterpreting this information. The P-47 was fames for its amazing dive speed, but it was exceeding it speed limit. The problem was recognized and delt with by pilot training and technical fixes. Like most of the aircraft of WWII the Thunderbolt went though many modifications to correct problems and improve performance. By the time the air war in West reached its peak in early 1944 most of the P-47's major problems had been worked out.

It's very hard debating which is the better fighter because the Mustang & Thunderbolt were such different planes. A pilot will fly his fighter to its strengths. As a classic dogfighter the Mustang is clearly the winner. It's fast and maneuverable in both the horizontal & vertical planes. Once it had the Packard Merlin engine and 85-gallon fuselage fuel tank it had the range and high-altitude performance to range over Germany destroying enemy fighters. It had the added advantage of both the Bf-109G's & FW-190A's being handy caped with the weight and drag penalties imposed by extra gun pods, and other anti-bomber weapons. The FW-190 was never at its best at high altitude and being burdened with the added weight of extra weapons and armor put them at a heavy disadvantage vs. the Mustang.

The Thunderbolt was designed from the beginning as a high-altitude fighter that was in its element above 25,000 ft. At altitude the P-47 was faster than both the Bf-109G-6 & the FW-190A and could out turn and dive them. Its heavy fire power could shred even the well armored FW-190A. At medium & lower altitudes the Thunderbolt's poor climb rate was greatly improved in early 1944 by giving it a paddle propeller that better bit into the air. The P-47 always had an excellent roll rate, and German pilots were amazed how hard it was to shoot one down just like the Japanese were amazed by how hard it was to shoot down an F4F or F6F. The Thunderbolt was clearly better on the deck basting ground targets.

The P-47M was probable the fastest American prop fighter ever being able to exceed 500mph in level flight. Being based on the M the wet wing N version would probably be just as fast over Japan when some of its fuel load was burned off. If WWII had lasted longer the number of super props on all sides would've been amazing, with German, British, and American fighters flying over 450 mph, and the P-47 actually passing 500 mph.

The USAAF was blessed to have 3 fighters that were faster than the Bf-109G, or FW-190A at altitude. Nether German fighter was capable of surpassing 400 mph in level flight. The P-38, P-47, and P-51 were amazingly capable fighters with great war records, and each has their fans. My point wasn't that the P-47 was superior to the P-51 just that the P-47 is underestimated by most history buffs. I do hold that radial engine designs were more rugged which helped bring many of their pilot's home after a tough fight. I think the USN was right to stick with radial engine aircraft. That choice enabled them to fight the air war they wanted to wage. An important factor in that decision was even pre-war navy and especially marine doctrine called for close air support. The USAAF planned a very different war, and only adjusted as circumstance demanded it.

 

[Sekhmet_D]

Its heavy fire power could shred even the well armored FW-190A.

It's so strange, isn't it. At the end of the day none of the Axis nations produced a warbird capable of withstanding .50 calibre fire, whereas you often saw American planes take damage from 20mm or greater and still make it home.

 

[CalBear]

To be honest, I do not give one flying fornicating god damn. You seem to be incapable of admitting that adding an additional operational circuit to an engine makes it more prone to failure, more difficult to maintain, and uses more consumables on a limited storage platform (aircraft carrier), and I am sick of listening to this.

Play the Ball.

 

[Belisarius II]

It's so strange, isn't it. At the end of the day none of the Axis nations produced a warbird capable of withstanding .50 calibre fire, whereas you often saw American planes take damage from 20mm or greater and still make it home.

That's a very good question. A 0.50 AP round could penetrate up to a half inch of plate steel. It's hard for an aircraft to carry that kind of armor. The debate between heavy MGs vs. cannons involves rates of fire and muzzle velocity. The 0.50 generally had a higher rate of fire, and muzzle velocity than most cannons used in WWII. Though cannon did more damage you generally got fewer hits from a burst of fire, and cannon had a smaller ammo load. So, while the British .303 was too light and the German MG 151/20mm wasn't super destructive for its size the 0.50 may have been just right.

The British Hispano Mk-V with its higher muzzle velocity than its German counterpart was even better. The fact that the U.S. screwed up in producing its licensed version of the Hispano Mk-V is one of the great scandals of WWII. The U.S. wanted at least mixed cannon armed fighters but was let down by stupid decisions made by higher ups in the ordinance department. In fact, that's my next what if question for the board.

In terms of durability, it's my understanding that the U.S. had a higher structural strength standard than the RAF used. That resulted in more robust but heavier aircraft. The secret of the P-51H was its main weight saving trick was building it to the lighter British standard. The lighter structure was one of the reasons the USAF kept the F-51D in service and not the faster H model.

 

[tomo pauk]

To be honest, I do not give one flying fornicating god damn. You seem to be incapable of admitting that adding an additional operational circuit to an engine makes it more prone to failure, more difficult to maintain, and uses more consumables on a limited storage platform (aircraft carrier), and I am sick of listening to this.

Acknowledged.

Respectfully I believe you're misinterpreting this information. The P-47 was fames for its amazing dive speed, but it was exceeding it speed limit. The problem was recognized and delt with by pilot training and technical fixes. Like most of the aircraft of WWII the Thunderbolt went though many modifications to correct problems and improve performance. By the time the air war in West reached its peak in early 1944 most of the P-47's major problems had been worked out.

I don't believe that I'm misrepresenting stuff. The P-51 was even faster in dive, and was safer to dive. P-47 was also a good fighter in dive, if not as safe to dive as fast. Unlike the P-47, there was no need to add the dive flaps to the P-51s.

It's very hard debating which is the better fighter because the Mustang & Thunderbolt were such different planes. A pilot will fly his fighter to its strengths. As a classic dogfighter the Mustang is clearly the winner. It's fast and maneuverable in both the horizontal & vertical planes. Once it had the Packard Merlin engine and 85-gallon fuselage fuel tank it had the range and high-altitude performance to range over Germany destroying enemy fighters. It had the added advantage of both the Bf-109G's & FW-190A's being handy caped with the weight and drag penalties imposed by extra gun pods, and other anti-bomber weapons. The FW-190 was never at its best at high altitude and being burdened with the added weight of extra weapons and armor put them at a heavy disadvantage vs. the Mustang.

Merlin Mustang was outperforming also the 190s and 109s /bar the 109K-4) when these were without the extra gun pods, and P-47 was similar in this regard to the Merlin Mustangs.
Pilots of the Fw 190As would've gladly traded the supposed ability to fly back home with a cylinder or two missing (due to a radial engine in the nose) for the performance of a P-51-B/-D, but Germany was late in that development. Even the pretty straightforward re-engining of the 190 with a big V12 - that would've provided them with closing the gap in performance above 20000 ft - was late by almost a full year vs. what was technically possible.

The Thunderbolt was designed from the beginning as a high-altitude fighter that was in its element above 25,000 ft. At altitude the P-47 was faster than both the Bf-109G-6 & the FW-190A and could out turn and dive them. Its heavy fire power could shred even the well armored FW-190A. At medium & lower altitudes the Thunderbolt's poor climb rate was greatly improved in early 1944 by giving it a paddle propeller that better bit into the air. The P-47 always had an excellent roll rate, and German pilots were amazed how hard it was to shoot one down just like the Japanese were amazed by how hard it was to shoot down an F4F or F6F. The Thunderbolt was clearly better on the deck basting ground targets.

Agreed all the way.

The P-47M was probable the fastest American prop fighter ever being able to exceed 500mph in level flight. Being based on the M the wet wing N version would probably be just as fast over Japan when some of its fuel load was burned off. If WWII had lasted longer the number of super props on all sides would've been amazing, with German, British, and American fighters flying over 450 mph, and the P-47 actually passing 500 mph.

P-47M, when the engine was working as it was supposed to, was indeed very fast. Seems like it was topping at ~475 mph; while not 500 mph, it was still with amazing speed for the ww2 piston-power fighter.

The USAAF was blessed to have 3 fighters that were faster than the Bf-109G, or FW-190A at altitude. Nether German fighter was capable of surpassing 400 mph in level flight. The P-38, P-47, and P-51 were amazingly capable fighters with great war records, and each has their fans. My point wasn't that the P-47 was superior to the P-51 just that the P-47 is underestimated by most history buffs. I do hold that radial engine designs were more rugged which helped bring many of their pilot's home after a tough fight. I think the USN was right to stick with radial engine aircraft. That choice enabled them to fight the air war they wanted to wage. An important factor in that decision was even pre-war navy and especially marine doctrine called for close air support. The USAAF planned a very different war, and only adjusted as circumstance demanded it.

German fighters, like the Fw 190A-2 or the Bf 109F-4 were topping 650 km/h by late 1941, ie. a tad better than 400 mph. Granted, what was amazing for that time was not cutting it two years later.
I like all of these US fighters. My intention via mentioning the P-51 and it's proves in flying and fighting many hundreds of miles away from friendly territory was to underscore that fighters powered by liquid-cooled engines were doing their job just fine, and that supposed ability of the radial engine powered fighter to came back with blown off cylinders is overblown.
Lastly, job of a fighter aircraft is not to bring it's pilot home, but to defeat enemy aircraft. P-51B and later delivered that in spades, ironically while killing the enemy's fighters that were powered by radial engines in many cases, all while 'returning' the bomber crews home by doing it's job. The same bomber crews that were in jeopardy even while on aircraft powered by multiple radial engines.
Pre-war USN and USMC doctrine was better served if the dive bombers were used for close air support than what will be possible with fighters.

I still can't remember when I've suggested that USN and USMC use liquid cooled engines on all of their aircraft, especially on the non-fighters.

In terms of durability, it's my understanding that the U.S. had a higher structural strength standard than the RAF used. That resulted in more robust but heavier aircraft. The secret of the P-51H was its main weight saving trick was building it to the lighter British standard. The lighter structure was one of the reasons the USAF kept the F-51D in service and not the faster H model.

P-51H was also kept in the service.

 

[alspug]

What is truly fascinating is that few people understand the problem of power and manuvering at alttitude and that for high alttitude work the P-47 with it's huge engine and large wings could turn without stalling much easier. (The Avro Vulcan was reputed to outturn the Phantom at alttitude due to large wings and decent engine power., )The P-38 was a very challenging aircraft for beginner pilots but once mastered was very lethal. The P-51 had excellent flight capabilities at low level as built but needed the Merlin to excel at alttitude.

The M2 50 cal is probably the best aircraft gun of the war due to it's mix of rate of fire and lethality. Yes it's inferior to the Hispano 20mm in it's later iterations but it was available throughout the war and worked rather well.

The weight of the gun was too much for some early british fighters but otherwise would have worked well. 4 0.50 guns would knock down a bomber or fighter faster than 8 0.303. That is my opinion anyway.

The Americans had the luxury of developing multiple fighters at once to an advanced level. Their research facilities did not face a direct threat and joined later as well.

I love the Spitfire and Mosquito as my favorite aircraft of WW2 but the Mustang and P 47 are not far behind. As far as Naval Aircraft I love the Corsair because of it's design and longevity.

 

[tomo pauk]

What is truly fascinating is that few people understand the problem of power and manuvering at alttitude and that for high alttitude work the P-47 with it's huge engine and large wings could turn without stalling much easier. (The Avro Vulcan was reputed to outturn the Phantom at alttitude due to large wings and decent engine power., )The P-38 was a very challenging aircraft for beginner pilots but once mastered was very lethal. The P-51 had excellent flight capabilities at low level as built but needed the Merlin to excel at alttitude.

Agreed pretty much.
It was unfortunate - I'll avoid finger pointing for the moment - that it took so long time for the P-38 to be debugged, and it was also unfortunate that P-47 was not specified by USAAC/AAF to carry a sizable external fuel tankage from day one. Would've trashed the Luftwaffe already by Autumn of 1943.

The M2 50 cal is probably the best aircraft gun of the war due to it's mix of rate of fire and lethality. Yes it's inferior to the Hispano 20mm in it's later iterations but it was available throughout the war and worked rather well.

M2 50 cal of late 1943 was not with the same firepower as the M2 50 cal of 1941-43, due to the ammo being on the weak side. The new API shot was a boon, supposedly copied the Soviet design. Lethality had a lot to do with how many were installed, and with the fact that Axis never fielded the rugged 4-engined bombers, unlike the Allies.
The M2 50 cal before 1941 on the US fighters was with lower firepower than earlier due to firing at 600+ rd/min instead of the mid-war 800 rd/min; mid-war as per European timing. It was also initially unreliable in wing mounts.

Soviet UB was at least as good in lethality department, was much lighter, and fired faster if synchronized. Both Soviet and German 20 mm cannons were also with the good rate of fire and were very lethal, were able to fire synchronised, while not being overweight.

The weight of the gun was too much for some early british fighters but otherwise would have worked well. 4 0.50 guns would knock down a bomber or fighter faster than 8 0.303. That is my opinion anyway.

The 4 HMG battery on the BoB era RAF's fighters is a very tempting suggestion IMO.

The Americans had the luxury of developing multiple fighters at once to an advanced level. Their research facilities did not face a direct threat and joined later as well.

I love the Spitfire and Mosquito as my favorite aircraft of WW2 but the Mustang and P 47 are not far behind. As far as Naval Aircraft I love the Corsair because of it's design and longevity.

Agreed.
USA were able to invest unheard amounts of money on different projects, were with the access to any type of raw material required, amount of fuel and manpower was never a problem (both to run the industry and military), factory floor space & tooling was there and was augmented with new factories being made, there was no question of putting all the eggs in a single basket...

 

[alspug]

I do not claim to be an expert and am always happy to learn I am wrong simply because it means I have learnt something NEW.

The question of what gun to fit and when is a difficult one however the thought of a Whirlwind fighter with a 6 0.50 gun battery in the nose makes me giglle at the thought of the damage it could do. The reliability increase would be worth it alone.

Getting back to topic the Wildcat was considered superior when only euipped with 4 50 cal in the wings.