Malcolm McKayA great thread – very informative and one that hasn’t degenerated into into mud-slinging pissing contest – at least not yet !
Second – IIRC, the Brewster F2A/339 had, essentially, the SAME engine as one of its Soviet opponents – the I-16.Ken
The Buffalo had a Wright R-1820, while the I-16 had a Shvetsov M-25 which was a licenced copy of the Wright R-1820.
Obviously there were minor design mods along the line but basically the same engine.
Commonly called the Cyclone it was a vey good engine, also used in later versions of the F4F. It also was used in export versions of the P-36.
Now how about some mud-slinging etc. ? – naah just joking. 😀
Malcolm McKayReal can of worms :confused: .
For me its the Merlin, Napier Sabre and Griffon for inline types. Although the DB605 was excellent. And let’s face it for low level work the Allison was no slouch.
For radials its a real toss-up – Wright Cyclone, P&W R2800, BMW, Bristol Hercules, Centaurus etc. etc.
One could just go on and on :confused: – the Russian engines were all good and the Japanese Homare was pretty fine too.
Too hard to pick though – my personal favourite is the Napier Sabre but that’s just a personal thing because I like the Tempest 😀 .
Malcolm McKaySecondly, the P38 always had turbochargers fitted from the prototype onwards, the positioning of the turbochargers being one of the reasons for the aircraft’s unusual twin-boom configuration. The only Lightnings without them were the 332F(French) and 332B(British) export models, and these never saw action. Early P38 models did have some engine troubles, particularly in Europe, but as I’ve heard it this was more to do with the intercoolers and other ancillaries.
Of course you are right, I was referring to the early version used by the British – which I really failed to make clear 😮 . Strange how governments make decisions that the designers warn them against, but still go ahead.
Yeager, who despite some personality problems, was a reasonable pilot liked the P39 which he flew in the States. Many other pilots liked them because of their light handling and manoeverability. Yet despite those virtues they just weren’t up to scratch where it countered as an air superiority fighter or interceptor.
The P63 was an excellent aircraft, but not really needed by the time it got into production. It was partly this falling off of production at Bell which allowed the US Government to give them the task of developing the first US jet – the P59. Plus the fact that Bell had a record of designing and producing aircraft which were a little out of the ordinary. The Aircuda is an example.
Oddly the first F2As were a very good and manoeverable fighter, well like by pilots – and actually was much better than the prototype Grumman F4F. Grumman had to completely redesign the F4F to stand a chance of getting a Navy contract. The later F2As were hampered by all the add ons and things that the Navy wanted, plus Brewster’s appalling production methods.
The Finns were flying the best combat version of it, and the F2A/339 actually had a very good record in the initial stages in Malaya, but lack of modern fighter control systems and early warning hampered it. Plus of course there was no way losses could be replenished. As was demonstrated in the Battle of Britain an air force needed instant replenishment of losses of material.
But what was OK then quickly became obsolete and the F2A had little development expansion inbuilt, unlike for example Spitfires or Me109s. The more you tried to upgrade it the heavier it got. By Midway in July of 1942 the F2A3 was quite overweight and obsolete. Fortunately the US had the F4F in quantity and F6Fs and F4Us in the pipeline.
Malcolm McKayInteresting points about the P39. From a handling point of view it was very popular with pilots. Also in its prototype form it was a world beater, but once all the combat equipment was added the performance dropped. Also the prototype was equipped with a supercharger but it was the USAAC that asked for it to be removed. This single silly mistake removed any chance the P39 had of being a good fighter at over 15000 feet.
So it was not a design fault that ruined it in its intended role but a short sighted government decision. With a supercharger fitted, and given normal technical development there is no real reason why IMHO it couldn’t have become a very useful addition to the allied armoury. Its performance as a prototype, with supercharger, was superior to, or equal to, any other fighter of the late 30s. Look at its successor the P63 – same geometry, but supercharged and a response to the lessons of Europe. Only the existence by then of the P47s and P51s prevented it from having a more major role.
Like the early P38, and the P40 it was castrated by the use of the unsupercharged Allison engine. Both those aircraft were good performers below 15000 feet, but it was a severe limitation on their all round usefulness. Also by the time these aircraft entered operational service (1941) their performance was too far behind the game being played out in the skies of Europe.
Basically they were the unhappy results of US planning being out of step with the reality of modern warfare. It took the US some frantic effort and a new generation of fighters, the P47 and P51 to catch up.
Malcolm McKayYes, we were your enemies in the Continuation War, UK even declared war on Finland, on 6 December 1941. We did have a choice, to be on the side of Stalin or Hitler. You could call that being between a rock and a hard place. With hindsight, our choice was good. Otherwise, we would have regained our independence about 15 years ago, just like Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia did. And I would not be writing this. Besides, Finland was never part of the so-called Axis powers, we just shared the enemy, and in that, only Soviet Union.
Actually I was not condemning the Finns – they made the best choice they had at the time. Alliance with Germany was from any perspective preferable to being swept up by the Russians. The point I was making is that so much of our perception of that particular conflict is tied up with our post-war Cold War feelings, which does tend to make many Westerners see anyone who fought the Russians as being ‘right’.
(I often suspect that is why some western countries were a little tardy in their approach to pursuing Nazi war criminals, and why we tended to forgive them if we found they had technical skills to offer (e.g. Von Braun). The Russians were perceived by many Americans and British as the true enemy long before 1939.)
Also I would think that the Finns had little choice. It was either accept the Germans or have then march through anyway. The other Baltic states had that happen.
However the Winter War is no real example as in 1939 the Russian armed forces had had their morale and best people destroyed by Stalin’s purges. They barely survived the German attack in 1941, so bad was the lingering effects of that purge. But once the end was coming for the Germans in the Russian campaign all of Germany’s allies (Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria and Finland) saw the writing on the wall and quickly made their own arrangements. They had no choice. It was either accept the Russian terms or the Russians would march through anyway.
The Continuation War while of importance to Finland was from a strategic viewpoint in the wider scope of the Eastern Front a bit of a sideshow. And the F2A, despite having its extraneous equipment removed, was never going to be much good once the Russian threw their best equipment and military against it.
For the Russians the P39 (Little Shaver) was not on par with their best fighters – the Yak family in particular were streets ahead of it.
As I said they were half a generation behind in 1939 and by 1944 they were simply obsolete. Any other interpretation of their respective roles is just wishful thinking. The Finns, I suspect, would gladly have traded the F2A for FW190s if the Germans had let them. For the Russians the P39 was just another aircraft to throw into the Eastern Front meat grinder.
They represent an interesting period in history but we would be unwise to inflate them to star billing.
Malcolm McKayThese two planes were not at all popular in the west, yet the Finns LOVED the Brewster and the Soviets did very well with the Airacobra……..so……what gives with that? Were they really terrible aircraft?
The F2A did well when used by the Finns against the Russians because the Russians didn’t ever field their best forces against the Finns – simple as that. The Rusians were sensible enough to realise that the Germans were the problem, not the Finns who were always fighting a defensive holding campaign. So the Russian forces, military and material, were not of the calibre of those used against the Germans in the main campaigns.
Once the tide turned in the Russian campaign the Finns folded very quickly. Accordingly an aircraft like the F2A could operate in the fairly even combat climate that prevailed prior to 1943/44.
The P39’s main use by the Russians was as a ground attack aircraft – that cannon in the nose was deadly. In fighter v fighter combat it did not have the same track record as the Migs, Yaks and Lagg fighters.
I have always thought that we, in the West, over rate the military exploits of the Finns because of the Cold War bias in our thinking, we see them as outnumbered underdogs fighting against the evil Russians. In WW2 the Russians were our allies, and no matter what the basis for the Finnish war effort, they were allied with the Germans our enemy.
The F2A and the P39 were hopelessly outclassed when put up against the main types used in the major theatres in WW2. Sure in the hands of a top pilot even mediocre aircraft can fair well. But the reality is that for every top pilot there are a few thousand ordinary ones who wouldn’t last five minutes in the major theatres in aircraft like the F2A and the P39. Both aircraft had the technical misfortune to be half a generation behind the play.
Malcolm McKayHi guys,
Over the years I have managed to collect quite a large number of old Frog Meteor F.4’s 🙂 with the plan of building a series of them showing their use by different squadrons. Despite buying all of the available books on the Meteor and trawling the internet for photos I have only found three images of F.4’s carrying the ‘squadron bars’ either side of the fuselage roundel (and one of them is as per the kit decals) 🙁 . Are there any experts out there who can conclusively tie in Meteor F.4 serials/aircraft letters and the use of the squadron bar marking. My plan is on hold until I can get some info. There are plenty of photos of the F.4 carrying the old Fighter Command wartime style codes in the 1940’s and early 50’s but surely some must have had the bars before they became so prevalent on Hunters and Meteor 8’s? :confused:
Mk4s were used by 1, 41, 43, 56, 63, 66, 74, 92, 222, 245, 257, 263, 500, 504, 600, 610, 611, 615 and 616 Squadrons. That said, when they first went into service they carried letter codes and in the early 50s squadrons began to reintroduce their colours. It is really a matter of tracking down each squadron and seeing if that particular one ever used the Mk4 with colours, or had transitioned to another type.
Photos I have show Mk4s carrying colour bars for the following squadrons –
1 red bar, first application was an extended diamond shape along the fuselage,
41 might have used a red band flanked by white lines above and below,
43 apparently not,
56 red and white checks as per standard,
63 black and yellow checks as per standard,
66 apparently not,
74 apparently not,
92 apparently not,
222 no,
245, apparently not,
257, no,
500, no,
504, no,
263 carried red bars with blue crosses,
600 red and white triangles,
610, no,
611, no,
615, no,
616, no.
In that list read ‘no’ for apparently not. Most squadrons that carried them on their Mk8s etc. used the Mk4 in the period when code letters were still applied. The Mk4 went out of service in 1950 and 1951 is about when the bars were reintroduced.
Hope that helps.
Malcolm McKayThe 3 was the last development and was the prime version operating at the end. However there were still 1s and 2s being used in the home islands for defence against the B29s. Many were drawn from OTUs, although they weren’t really up to the task. There were I believe even instances of Ki-27s (also from OTUs) in use and they were to all intents and purposes obsolete by 1940.
The Japanese had to really scrape the bottom of the barrel by then. I’ve always liked the Nakajima fighters, they were all, with the exception of the Ki-44 Shoki, rather graceful aircraft.
Malcolm McKayIt’s all very well to bang on about how the Me262, Me163, Spitfire, P47N etc etc etc all COULD have gone supersonic. But there is no way that anyone is going to try it now to prove it, and no-one ever MEASURED the thing doing it. Without good evidence like that, what are we left with? Richard Pearse, first man to fly? Clement Ader, first man to fly? 😡
I don’t believe anyone said any of the aircraft you quote could go supersonic, they just quoted unsubstantiated rumour. The simple truth is that none could because of their physical shape. Getting something to go supersonic is not simply a matter of increasing the engine power, or pointing it towards the ground in a dive at full bore inthe blind hope of breaking the sound barrier.
The Americans found out this when the built and test flew the first fighter intended to be supersonic. This was the XF-102 a development of the XF-92. They found that no matter how much they poured on the power the aircraft got to about Mach.91 and couldn’t go any faster. The problem was solved when they discovered the area rule effect which requires that the total frontal area of an a/c including the wings contributes to creating excessive drag when an aircraft approaches Mach1.
They found that by creating on delta winged aircraft, and swept wing aircraft, what was commonly called the coke bottle fuselage where the cross section of the fuselage is decreased to compensate for the part of the aircraft where the wing span is at its maximum then the aircraft would happily sail through Mach1 without much fuss. In effect they reduce the aircraft’s frontal area at the critical aerodynamic point.
This resulted in a complete redesign of the F-102 enabling it to go about Mach 1.3 but still necessitated a whole new interceptor, the F-106, which finally overcame all the shortcomings of the F-102 and quite happily went to Mach 2.3.
As for propellor blades – I believe that it is both rare and not very conducive to good performance for the tip of the blade to go supersonic.
In the late 1940s the Americans designed the XF-84H. This was an experimental fighter with a turbo-prop engine in which the propellor was actually designed to operate at supersonic tip speeds. The aircraft was unflyable because the resulting noise level created by a myriad of little sonic booms was so intense that it induced crippling nausea in the ground crews and pilots alike. An effect similar to that felt by the German test pilots in WW2 who tested some ram-jet designs.
Malcolm McKayA little focus here folks!
We are still foundered on the FACT that a documented British concern does not prove a German action. (As I stated, without needing to see the document, right at the start.)
‘Airfields’ close together indicates local suspicion, fuelled by local knowledge, rather than a properly detected enemy activity.
Cheer up – if this “research” ever sees the light of day, it’ll be snapped up as the basis for yet another “factual” documentary by the media and the author will make a small fortune. It is the aviation equivalent of the Da Vinci Code.
I put the whole thing in the same class as “Chariots of the Gods”. It will become another harmless fantasy believed by people whose sense of reality is tinged by overactive imaginations and romantic dreams of being the next Galileo.
It is the easiest form of research. All you need to say is that there is no proof that it didn’t happen and those people whose logical processes are faulty will automatically assume that it did. Von Daniken and ever other new age “scholar” made a fortune out of the ability of people to believe anything, so why should this be any different.
We’ll all probably attend the book signing. I wonder what it will be called? “The Great Beet Field Conspiracy” – an expose of how Hitler’s vegetarianism nearly won the war for Germany.
It’s all a bit like cigars – sometimes a barn is a barn (S. Freud).
Malcolm McKayMalcolm I’m not sure what your point is?
The “G” is supposedly not historically important itself?? due to problems in manufacturing quality, yet its not appropriate to display it in the colours of a “D”?
I think you missed my point – I wasn’t saying that the P47G was not historically significant. What I was saying was that it would be nice to see it displayed as it really was – a P47G, not repainted to masquerade as a phony P47D (I am not even suggesting that this might happen). It is an historic artefact in its own right, and doesn’t need a fake scheme to enhance it, the fact is that its significance lies in it being a P47G.
Yes I know all the arguments – the owner/owners have the right to paint it in any scheme they like; whatever brings the crowds to airshows is great because it encourages preservation etc. etc. That’s a whole can of worms I really don’t want to open. But as a personal aside it is nice to see an aircraft restored to one of the schemes it actually carried rather than just being repainted in a scheme that it never carried, but chosen because it is “famous”.
And I am notcriticising the BoB Memorial Flight as its purpose is to show its aircraft in a variety of schemes as a memorial.
Malcolm McKayBack on topic, does anyone know the difference between a P47D razorback and the P47G? Can’t wait to see one in the UK, especially as all the other P47’s around have the bubble canopy, just like when P51 Princess Liz first flew, never thought i’d see a razorback Mustang
As I said on another thread. The P47G was the version of the P47D Razorback that was built by Curtiss.
Curtiss’ production standards were very bad, the USAAF rejected the G for combat service and the just over 300 built were relegated to training duties in the States. The only real difference between the G and the D was that the cockpit interior was painted Interior Green rather than the standard Dark Green used on the D.
The most interesting variant of the G was the TP-47G – a purpose built two-seater. Only 2 were built. In the ETO some P47Ds that were war weary were converted by depot and base personnel. IIRC the TP-47G was the only purpose built two seater Jug.
I hope that the TFC P47G is painted as it should be which is as a State side based training aircraft rather than as a P47D in combat markings. If the latter was to happen it would be unfortunate as the training markings make it a rarity while there are true combat Jugs on the circuits.
Malcolm McKayIt is plain you know far more about the ownership and operation of a warbird fleet than the Fighter Collection.
I’m sure they are very grateful for your comment and are kicking themselves as we speak.
Moggy
Just pointing out that the P47G is not rare – just a rather underproduced and unused variant. No axe to grind with TFC, so don’t get your knickers in a twist.
To most people with some knowledge of the P47, no matter how slight, the details of the P47G are common knowledge. Personally, and I stress personally, if a Hurricane was the trade then I’m afraid it was a poor deal – the bog standard P47D razorback saw service, while the G was relegated to training duties.
I hope they keep the cockpit interior painted in its distinctive colour. I quote from one source –
“Production problems plagued the P47G, and quality control was substandard. None were ever used in combat. Instead, they were only in training and test programs.” Kinsey, P47 Thunderbolt, D & S Vol. 54, page 59.
The fault was not the aircraft but poor work at the Curtiss factory. So basically all the P47G was was a poorly produced copy of the P47D.
Malcolm McKayFrankly the P47G is not a particularly interesting variant. IIRC they were Curtiss built razor back Ds and none saw combat. All were used as trainers in the States. Their one distiguishing feature is that the cockpit interior was painted in Interior Green rather than the Dark Green standard for all other Jugs.
If they swapped a Hurricane for this then someone must have seen them coming.
Malcolm McKayBut Ollie, they’re speaking English! 😀
Old NKVD trick to infiltrate spies into Bomber Command 😀
Sign In
