Interceptor vs Escort.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by KraziKanuK

The Spitfire had a narrower track than the 109. The Russians did not use the Spit as a front line fighter partly because of its weak gear and nose heaviness.

What gave problems to the 109 was the toe in the wheels had. If the landing was not 'square' (wings level) then the a/c would begin a ground loop (to the opposite direction of the wheel touching) and if not caught in time would put too much stress on the leg and it would collapse.

I believe the -109 had a seamless tube oleo, light but not too strong. I also believe the -109s landing gear were "toe out, camber in" potentially causing a "wheell barrel" effect if one tire contacts the runway first further adding to the problem.

Originally Posted by KraziKanuK

An old Spit pilot once told me that a flick stall in a Spit could be very deadly > almost impossible to get out of the resulting spin.

A "flick stall" is similar to a snap roll except you're flying at a lower power setting and is very susceptible to spin entry in any high-torque, high power aircraft, especially at a low propeller pitch setting. I don't see doing this in combat unless you're caught by surprise at a low-cruise power setting and you want to confuse your opponent who by now is filling your aircraft full of cannon shells (providing you're flying a Spit). If you attempt this maneuver too tightly, not only will you spin but you could easily over-stress the airframe. If you spin you need to immediately come back to idle power and apply opposite rudder and forward stick before you allow the aircraft to get too "wound up."

I would suspect a Mustang would be real susceptible to this especially with its fuselage fuel tank full of fuel.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

I believe the -109 had a seamless tube oleo, light but not too strong. I also believe the -109s landing gear were "toe out, camber in" potentially causing a "wheell barrel" effect if one tire contacts the runway first further adding to the problem.

I think you are correct.

[vanir]

WRT the OP and K4 vs Mustang, I've just been watching some war footage of the allied bombing campaign prior to the introduction of P51 escorts (a fatality rate of 8+% for US bomber crews, or less than 13 mission survivability), in which 109's massed to intercept bomber flights and were followed by 110's which really carved them up with rockets.
At this time the Luftwaffe were enjoying an 8:1 kill ratio against RAF fighters that tried to cross the channel, btw.
Even so, during some missions every single Luftwaffe fighter would have as many as 540 machineguns trained on them each pass by the bombers overlapping cover zones. It is considered their effort and that of their industry to rebuild was phenominal.
But it was becoming a war of attrition and the Luftwaffe were quickly running out of experienced pilots.

When Mustangs came with the bombers, they attacked the German fighters while they were still massing, and made mince meat of pursuing 110's. This changed the bombing campaign through 1943 into one in which the allies gained total air superiority.

So by the time magnificent aircraft like the K4 made it to squadron service, you had pilots who were still pimpled and anxious about dating girls.
There were so many allied aircraft flying over Germany at this time,
"fighter bombers often had to wait in line to attack targets."
-Wings of War documentary.

I think while the Mustang's appearance can not be understated, I'd agree that its performance as a contemporary dogfighter may be somewhat a little overrated.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by vanir

some missions every single Luftwaffe fighter would have as many as 540 machineguns trained on them each pass by the bombers overlapping cover zones.

This is a point sometimes missed in some of the fourms here. There was an element of teamwork between the gunners within the cover zones and as we know thee zones were effictive but not absolute in defence of the bomber formations.

[wmaxt]

Another thing often missed is that before escorts the loss rate was ~9/10% per mission of which the AAA acounted for the first 3/4%. In late '43 P-38s were used and the loss rate immediately dropped to 4/5%. Many times the attacking fighters would by pass the groups with P-38 escort to go after the unescorted bombers - in other words the escort was still effective even when they didn't get into a fight. Escort was the key not so much which airplane was doing the escorting.

wmaxt

[vanir]

Whoa, makes perfect sense in every fashion but I had no idea the P38 was used as bomber escort.
From late 1943 you say? Anybody know a typical bomber flight configuration through the 8th's campaign?

Say, B-25's and I dunno, B-17F's in 1942
B-17G's and P51B's in 1943
B-17G's and P38's in late 1943
B-17G's and P51D's in 1944 onwards
???

[wmaxt]

Originally Posted by vanir

Whoa, makes perfect sense in every fashion but I had no idea the P38 was used as bomber escort.
From late 1943 you say? Anybody know a typical bomber flight configuration through the 8th's campaign?

Say, B-25's and I dunno, B-17F's in 1942
B-17G's and P51B's in 1943
B-17G's and P38's in late 1943
B-17G's and P51D's in 1944 onwards
???

The first escorts were P-38s starting very late in October '43. The first P-51B/Cs started the last week in December '43 (354th FG 9th AF). P-38s were the dominant escort untill the D-Day preperations began in mid May '44. the P-51 reached 50% in late June '44. then the P-51s did the majority of the escort to the end of the war. P-47D-25s ( 4 groups the 356th, 353th, 78th, 56th) worked with the P-51s and the 474FG P-38s till the end of the war. The P-51 was never the only long range escort. After June '44 the P-38s went to the 9th AF and ground attack duties except for the 474th FG.

This was only in the ETO The P-38 was the prime escort everywhere else from early '43 until April '45 when long range P-47s/P-51s were escorting B-29s (P-38s also escorted B-29 but is rarely mentioned).

Politicaly if the admission that P-38 were available and able to escort 8th AF bombers in early/mid '43 were made, people like H. Arnold, C. Spatz and others would have been fired for sacrificing so many airmen unnecisarily. The official line was that there was no long range escort available until the P-51 arrived. The excuse they used was the problems the first P-38s had Frost bit pilots and engine problems plus the 8th never supported the P-38s properly, poor training, bad gas, small drop tanks (the ETO only used the 165gal drop tanks limiting the range some). In the end these were not nearly as bad as the AAF made it seem.

The bomber mix went from primarily +/- 600 B-17E/Fs in '43 to 1,000+ B-17Gs and B-24s in '45 covered by 175 P-38s in '43 to 1,000+ P-51/P-47/P-38s in '45. P-47s/Spitfires Always escorted from the channel to the western border of Germany where the shorter range aircraft had to return to base.

wmaxt

[Erich]

Gents I think we need to remember that in late 43 and early 44 in the 8th AF the Jug was the mainstay of the 8th AF fighter escorts and in fact there is more Jug combat footage than P-38 ETO footage available. Several 8th AF groups were never even equipped with the P-38. The 353rd fg with the Jug claimed they invented ground strafing. Of course that can be contended by the 9th AF 354th fg with the P-51 in December 43 who were blowing out Bf 110G's at a tremendous rate as well as Fw 190's and Bf 109G's, and then secondary hitting the deck and slaughtering everything in site. The 56th fg of the 8th flying the Jug all through the war would also argue this point with again high scoring claims.....

back in a few days

[Glider]

'The 353rd fg with the Jug claimed they invented ground strafing'.

I wonder what those RAF flights over occupied France and other occupied countries were for from 1941 on. Must have been navigation tests.

[wmaxt]

Originally Posted by Erich

Gents I think we need to remember that in late 43 and early 44 in the 8th AF the Jug was the mainstay of the 8th AF fighter escorts and in fact there is more Jug combat footage than P-38 ETO footage available. Several 8th AF groups were never even equipped with the P-38. The 353rd fg with the Jug claimed they invented ground strafing. Of course that can be contended by the 9th AF 354th fg with the P-51 in December 43 who were blowing out Bf 110G's at a tremendous rate as well as Fw 190's and Bf 109G's, and then secondary hitting the deck and slaughtering everything in site. The 56th fg of the 8th flying the Jug all through the war would also argue this point with again high scoring claims.....

back in a few days

True enough, in the ETO the P-38 flew 130,000sorties the P-51 214,000 and the P-47 427,000. The Jugs on the whole outnumbered the P-51s by a factor of two the whole time. However, in reference to escorts, In the 8th AF though it was different, Until late June '44 the P-38 outnumbered the P-51. Escort wise in June '44 there were 4 FGs of P-38s in the 8th, 8 P-51 FGs and 4 P-47 groups. After July '44 the P-38s was phased into the 9th AF except for the 474th, while the 4FGs of P-47s remained escorting. The P-47 had such a high sortie rate for several reasons.
1. The short range leg from Britian to the German border (and back) was Always P-47 territory because of the short range of the earlier models and often Two sorties were made. These flights were not contested much by the Germans. It wasn't until the P-47-25s became available in the summer of '44 that they began long range escort.
2. ground attack is a much shorter mission and the majority of P-47s
were 9th AF and used for ground attack.
3. There were twice as many of them.

The Jug was an excellent aircraft and was very effective and I did not intentionaly lessen it's impact on the war, I was just answering a question about escorting when before June '44 the P-38 was the prime long range escort and like the Jug never gets credit for that.

wmaxt

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

The P-38 was used more in the N. Afrika/MTO area of operations than in the ETO anyhow.

[wmaxt]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

The P-38 was used more in the N. Afrika/MTO area of operations than in the ETO anyhow.

No doubt. The P-38 was in the ETO when it was needed most and did the jobs it was asked to do effectively. The timing and effectiveness of the P-38 in the ETO have been ignored and missrepresented for far to long. I guess thats true to other aircraft too.

wmaxt

[ricardo]

Originally Posted by wmaxt

No doubt. The P-38 was in the ETO when it was needed most and did the jobs it was asked to do effectively. The timing and effectiveness of the P-38 in the ETO have been ignored and missrepresented for far to long. I guess thats true to other aircraft too.

wmaxt

I think the P-38s enjoyed their "Indian Summer" during the North African Campaign. In the ETO it was a different story. The USAAF lost more P-38s than shot down enemies by P-38s.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by ricardo

I think the P-38s enjoyed their "Indian Summer" during the North African Campaign. In the ETO it was a different story. The USAAF lost more P-38s than shot down enemies by P-38s.

Don't think so.....

I think it's been posted and PROVEN here before that the worse the P-38 did in the ETO was a 1.1 to 1 kill ratio. More liberal claims show a 4 to 1 kill ratio.

Reference: http://yarchive.net/mil/p38.html

[cheddar cheese]

I seriously doubt that claim.