Best WWII Air-Force

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Soren

Now lets close this chapter, esp. since no LW aircraft suffered from structural problems (Except for the glued together He-162 ofcourse) and nearly no Allied a/c either, the P-51 however was suffering from a design flaw causing catastrophic wing failure at around 7-8 G's IIRC - I have a report on this somewhere.

Just to sum up,
The FW200 had a structural problem and tended to break its back
The He177 tended to catch fire
The 109F could poison its pilot with Carbon monoxide

I don't want to extend the debate just lets not pretend that all German aircraft were built and designed with no problems at all. All countries were under strain to develop and introduce aircraft into combat and at times errors were made.

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by Glider

....
I don't want to extend the debate just lets not pretend that all German aircraft were built and designed with no problems at all. All countries were under strain to develop and introduce aircraft into combat and at times errors were made.

Good point.

One other little point.... the AAF fighter pilots had gee suits, the LW didnt.

Allied pilots could get more out of their planes.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Soren

Now lets close this chapter, esp. since no LW aircraft suffered from structural problems (Except for the glued together He-162 ofcourse) and nearly no Allied a/c either, the P-51 however was suffering from a design flaw causing catastrophic wing failure at around 7-8 G's IIRC - I have a report on this somewhere.

The glued together Ta154 also experienced structural failure.

The 262s experienced the same type exhaust failure the XP-80 , had failures of Turbine blade separations causing fires and crashed, had control failures of horiz Stab (PC+UB), Structural failure (VI+AA), causes unknown (VI+AB, VI+AJ, VI+AI, VI+AS)), Stator Ring failure(VI+AK)...

During ops Herman Buchner Kommando Nowatny said in an interview w/Steven Snyder in 1992 "Although the jet was not supersonic, it is true that we had many crashes at high speed. At high speed it would go in a dive, down and down, and the stick could not be corrected - it would not move. There was no chance to get out of the dive" pg 95 "Me262 Stormbird Rising"

The P-38 and P51 each experienced several structural failure in dives approaching compressibility.

In the case of the P-51, all of the issues were caused by replacing Allison with heavier more powerful Rolls - one problem was the main gear door opening every once in awhile - which the subsequent uplock kits fixed in the B - during High Speed/High G turns... gear dropped and right wing ripped away

The second issue was a lateral stability issue caused by putting the Merlin in w/o increasing length or tail - which didn't get truly fixed until the 51H. This was during high speed/high G maneuvers and boosting Rudder loads helped this issue

The third was the annoying and dangerous high speed porpoise effect due to installation of the 85 gallon tank.

If you wish to consider these (including the Me262) 'design flaws ' or 'manufacturing' issues - go for it. I call them exceeding design specs and running into issues that were borderline science... trying to get max performance in wartime conditions!

What say you?

[mkloby]

Originally Posted by Soren

Now lets close this chapter, esp. since no LW aircraft suffered from structural problems (Except for the glued together He-162 ofcourse) and nearly no Allied a/c either, the P-51 however was suffering from a design flaw causing catastrophic wing failure at around 7-8 G's IIRC - I have a report on this somewhere.

I recall early Bf109F's suffering from catastrophic structural failure of the empennage due to sympathetic vibrations caused by a certain RPM range of the engine...

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Soren

Adler,

Make fun all you want, I cannot converse with somone who refuses to listen.

I am not making fun. I am showing you what your conversations looks like and you are letting your bias get the better of you.

Originally Posted by Soren

I never claimed the LW possessed a longer global reach than the US, again that is something you made up yourself. What I said was the global reach of the LW was the same as that of the USAAF - Unless the USAAF had a base in Europe to operate from there was no way they could attack Germany, and its the same for the LW, unless the LW had bases to operate from in the America's then there was no way they could successfully attack the USA. The LW possessed long range bombers as-well, bombers with equal range & bomb-load as those of the USAAF. These are facts Adler, but you're welcome to dispute them.

No the Luftwaffe did not have the same global reach. Did the Luftwaffe have Carriers? No...

Fact is fact again go ahead and try and dispute them. Your loss if you do.

Originally Posted by Soren

I never claimed the LW was the best AF of 1944-45, I even made it clear that it couldn't be because of its lack of fuel & trained pilots - without these two it doesn't matter what a/c you possess.

Then why are you argueing that the Luftwaffe was better in every catagory. By doing so you are saying the Luftwaffe was the best.

Originally Posted by Soren

Now as to the He-177, He-277, Me-264 & Ju-390, again I stand by what I have said before, they were the equal of the Allied bombers, they just didn't get to operate in the same fashion or enjoyed the same level of protection.

Then please prove how they were better in each of these catagories (you need to list sources and show hard facts not opinions.):

1. Performance

2. Construction Method

3. Reliability

[Soren]

Originally Posted by Glider

Just to sum up,
The FW200 had a structural problem and tended to break its back

Tended ?? On how many occasions ?

The Condor's only real weakness was its dreadfully slow speed.

The He177 tended to catch fire

It did in the beginning, yes, later it was solved. Also this isn't a "Structural problem".

The 109F could poison its pilot with Carbon monoxide

No, however the Spanish Buchon had this problem - the exhausts sitting up higher and level with the cockpit.

I don't want to extend the debate just lets not pretend that all German aircraft were built and designed with no problems at all. All countries were under strain to develop and introduce aircraft into combat and at times errors were made.

Agreed, but nearly no LW or Allied a/c which saw extensive military service suffered from any structural design errors - Esp. not the Bf-109 which structurally was one of the strongest fighters of WW2, its wings being capable of withstanding 13+ G.

___________________________

Adler

No the Luftwaffe did not have the same global reach. Did the Luftwaffe have Carriers? No...

Fact is fact again go ahead and try and dispute them. Your loss if you do.

So now the USAAF is the USN as-well ?? Sorry didn't know that...

Yes Fact is Fact Adler, and fact is the LW and USAAF both had the same global reach.

Then why are you argueing that the Luftwaffe was better in every catagory. By doing so you are saying the Luftwaffe was the best.

Again its like you wont listen, cause now you're just not making any sense Adler. How can I be argueing that the LW is better in every category when I'm saying they lacked properly trained pilots & fuel ??

The LW possessed better fighters, night-fighters & medium bombers than the Allies, but thats it. Sure they had a few good heavy bombers, but they weren't better than the latest Allied one, the B-29, infact most were inferior in the overall picture - the He-277 being the equal.

Then please prove how they were better in each of these catagories (you need to list sources and show hard facts not opinions.):

1. Performance

2. Construction Method

3. Reliability

1. They were almost all better - only the B-29 was faster or equally fast.

2. Well the Allied methods were faster & the German methods were slower, which is better, well, for war faster is always good.

3. Some suffered in this department, like the He-177, but so did the B-29 for example, so better no, equal yes. Also remember that later in the war maintenance wasn't possible as frequently in the LW & spare parts were in short suplly as-well - so the operating enviroment was also tougher for the German a/c.

____________________

Bill,

Soren, you committed to checking out the facts and already you are 'assuming' the force mix to be 'heavily armed interceptors'..

Ofcourse, cause incase you didn't know Bill shooting down the bombers was the main task.

Remember, the thesis of our running argument is a.) that USAAF long range escort at the point of the spear where the 8th AF and 9th AF P-47s could not go, did in fact - or did not in fact encounter large German fighter strength in numbers such that the USAAF escorts were outnumbered, and b.) that the LW single engine fighter force was not - or was - outnumbered 8:1 or greater by the USAAF in those battles over Germany in the January1 -May 30, 1944.

I remember, and you have yet to provide evidence that the dedicated LW fighters weren't on a general basis out-numbered 8:1. The bomber-interceptors don't count cause they were easy pickings, the escorts simply coming down from above picking them off either as they attacked the bombers or before or emmediately after - now what is a FW-190A armed with gunpods going to do against a Mustang at 30,000 + ft ?? Not only is this well above the Antons FTH, but its also directly inside the Mustangs FTH ! And the Bf-109's, well if they were after the bombers they were equipped with gun-pods, otherwise they were there to fight the escorts.

The only LW fighters who's job was always to attack the escorts was the Fw-190 Dora-9's, and they were always hopelessly out-numbered and yet they gave the P-51's some trouble (Willi Reschke writes about this in his book Wilde Sau, and German pilot accounts in Dietmar Hermann's book as-well)

are you limiting the argument to the Me109G6-A/S? and excluding all Fw190s in that timeframe?

Does it sound like I am ??

For the sake of definition I am talking about a.) aerial combat between the hopelessly outclassed Mustangs in that timeframe (the less nimble, slow rolling, slow climbing P-51B) - and I am talking about 'trashed' in the context of those outnumbered Mustangs shooting down far more LW fighters than they lost in turn

And b.) You're not being objective about any of it !

How do you suppose all those LW fighters got shot down Bill ?? In dogfights ?? Sorry but the answer is NO, nearly all were shot down never knowing what was coming whilst engaging the bombers. And again I ask you, what is a Anton armed with gun-pods, above its FTH, going to against a P-51 ?

The bomber interceptors were easy pickings for the escorts, hence the number shot down. However as perfectly illustrated in your supposedly bad day for the LW the bomber interceptors did their work as-well, shooting down a good number of bombers, each of which holding a crew of 7-10 men. So how bad was that day really for the LW compared to how it was for the Allies ??

At no time have I denigrated, or will denigrate the courage (throughout the war) or effective ness of the Luftwaffe Fighter arm against the B-17 and B-24. They proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that daylight bombing must have escort fighters to succeed.

No but you have denigrated the LW huge effectiveness against enemy fighters which considering the operational enviroment was unpresidented really, and esp. on an individual plane.

Yes, the LW also 'trashed' 40 8th AF bombers that day in the 3 pronged strike - one of the last 3 in which the LW achieved 10% of the bomber force.

Percentages here percentages there, and you're complaining about "would have's" ?? Multiply 40 with 7 or 10 and see what comes up Bill, after having done that you might realize what catastrophy each bombing-run really was.

But back to the thesis of LW s/e fighter force versus USAAF escorts in aerial combat with each other. Please don't comment until you have either verified or found a material discrepancy in each of the examples I give you about the strengths of both fighter forces in the engagements? Then we can move to next one

Agreed.

The glued together Ta154 also experienced structural failure.

You're the worst nitpicker of all..

The Ta-154 didn't see service with the LW, it didn't even go past its prototype stage. But if I wished to as much a nitpicker as yourself I could list several structurally unsound US prototypes a/c as-well.

The 262s experienced the same type exhaust failure the XP-80 , had failures of Turbine blade separations causing fires and crashed, had control failures of horiz Stab (PC+UB), Structural failure (VI+AA), causes unknown (VI+AB, VI+AJ, VI+AI, VI+AS)), Stator Ring failure(VI+AK)...

The Me-262 suffered NO structural failures or design flaws, it did however "suffer" the pitch down behavior in the transsonic speed region, however this region wasn't well explored and therefore this can't be seen as a design flaw.

During ops Herman Buchner Kommando Nowatny said in an interview w/Steven Snyder in 1992 "Although the jet was not supersonic, it is true that we had many crashes at high speed. At high speed it would go in a dive, down and down, and the stick could not be corrected - it would not move. There was no chance to get out of the dive" pg 95 "Me262 Stormbird Rising"

Read the Me-262A-1a POH as-well as this please: The Me262 and The Race to Mach1

The P-38 and P51 each experienced several structural failure in dives approaching compressibility.

In the case of the P-51, all of the issues were caused by replacing Allison with heavier more powerful Rolls - one problem was the main gear door opening every once in awhile - which the subsequent uplock kits fixed in the B - during High Speed/High G turns... gear dropped and right wing ripped away

The second issue was a lateral stability issue caused by putting the Merlin in w/o increasing length or tail - which didn't get truly fixed until the 51H. This was during high speed/high G maneuvers and boosting Rudder loads helped this issue

The third was the annoying and dangerous high speed porpoise effect due to installation of the 85 gallon tank.

And the third was the fact that the wings couldn't take more than 7-8 G's.

If you wish to consider these (including the Me262) 'design flaws ' or 'manufacturing' issues - go for it. I call them exceeding design specs and running into issues that were borderline science... trying to get max performance in wartime conditions!

What say you?

I say the P-51 Mustang did have flaws which weren't because of borderline science but were just a plain simple error. I'm not saying it was a huge flaw as 7-8G's wasn't reached that often combat seeing that most shoot downs were the result of bounces.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Soren

Tended ?? On how many occasions ?

The Condor's only real weakness was its dreadfully slow speed.


It did in the beginning, yes, later it was solved. Also this isn't a "Structural problem".

"Production continued immediately with the Fw 200C-l, which was planned as the definitive version although it still had a weak structure, very vulnerable fuel system (especially from below), no armour except behind the captain's seat and many inconvenient features."

Focke Wulf Condor

"An engineering defect in the aft fuselage tail section (the structural shortcomings contributed to many accidents) kept the Condor from reaching the legendary status like that of the Battle of Britain veterans - the Dornier Do 17 and the Heinkel He 111 (both detailed elsewhere on this site). Thusly the system was relegated it to the supplementary roles mentioned above."

Focke-Wulf Fw 200 (Condor)*Long-Range Maritime Reconnaissance / Bomber - Military and Civilian Aircraft

[lesofprimus]

[Soren]

FLYBOYJ, why did you quote my answer regarding the He-177 ?

What I said was that the He-177's engines caught fire wasn't a structural problem, and that this problem was solved later.

As to the Condor, well it was susceptible to fire and a hard landing could cause the rear fuselage to snap, but MANY accidents ?? I think you'd have a hard time naming "many" accidents which were attributed to this problem.


Anyways, back to the original point: Nearly no LW or Allied a/c which saw extensive service suffered any serious structural problems, the Condor, He-162 & P-51 being the only three I can name. (The He-162 didn't see extensive service though)

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Soren

FLYBOYJ, why did you quote my answer regarding the He-177 ?

What I said was that the He-177's engines caught fire wasn't a structural problem, and that this problem was solved later.

As to the Condor, well it was susceptible to fire and a hard landing could cause the rear fuselage to snap, but MANY accidents ?? I think you'd have a hard time naming "many" accidents which were attributed to this problem.

In the line above your post was a quoted reply from Glider...

Originally Posted by Glider
Just to sum up,
The FW200 had a structural problem and tended to break its back

And you posted the following....

Tended ?? On how many occasions ?

The Condor's only real weakness was its dreadfully slow speed.

My mistake in bringing in the quote on the He 177 but I think my examples still answered your comments on the FW 200.

[Soren]

Well is 8 times enough to claim that the FW-200 "tended" to break its back ?

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Soren

Well is 8 times enough to claim that the FW-200 "tended" to break its back ?

If the aircraft was landed normally, absolutely - and there's no way to know how many other FW 200s that had structural damage and were repaired before they broke their backs as well. And this was reported by crews...

"The crews also complained about inadequate armament and an vulnerable fuel system."

8 Structural failures was enough for the Luftwaffle to modify the aircraft....

Bottom line the Fw 200C-1 was not well liked by its crews and it had problems that were never fully rectified.

[Soren]

The aircraft probably wasn't landed normally, otherwise many more would've suffered the same fate, but the structure wasn't as strong as needed I agree.

As to defensive armament, never denied it. The Condor did do well as a maritime bomber though.

The Condor's biggest weakness remained its slow speed though, it was painfully slow, so slow that Hurries could be dispatched to shoot it down.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Soren

The aircraft probably wasn't landed normally, otherwise many more would've suffered the same fate, but the structure wasn't as strong as needed I agree.

Soren, do you think the Luftwaffe would of modified a whole production line over 8 pranged up aircraft if there wasn't a real problem??

BTW - you know how many FW 200s were produced? A whopping 278! How many were operational when those 8 aircraft failed? I'd guess less than 100.

Originally Posted by Soren

As to defensive armament, never denied it. The Condor did do well as a maritime bomber though.

It had initial success but by 1943 Fw 200 crews were told not to attack shipping but only perform recon roles and by 1944 the aircraft was relegated only to transport roles....