Best WWII Air-Force

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Soren

Bill,

The Ta-152H-1's internal fuel capacity was ~1,000 Liters, compared to the 640 Liters of the FW-190. Both could carry one, two or three 300 L drop tanks. Bomb load capability was two 250 kg bombs + one 500 kg bomb, or up to a single 1,800 kg centerline bomb. Now AFAIK not even the P-38 could haul such a load, which just goes to show how sturdy the FW190 airframe actually is.

So about 1900 liters x .26 gallons = ~500 gallons total? the 51H had 192 wing plus 60 gal fuse plus 320 gallons external (ferry) or 220 external (Shuttle mission to Russia or escort to Japan from Guam. The 51D and B could carry 85 in fuse tank but wasn't as fast in cruise or top speed... so the 51H could go farther with less.

Very interesting... So the Ta 152 could carry about the same as a 51H internally? and externally?

Did the LW ever perform long range flight test to see what the nominal combat radius actually was for the Ta 152H-1? Now it's all about drag if those numbers are correct. Or any historical photo recon like over Greenland or Azores to point back to for some sense of the actual versus theoretical?

FW-190 G-3 with 1x 500 kg bomb and 2x 300 L drop tanks.

The P-38L could (theoretically) could carry two 2,000 pund bombs and Lindbergh apparently did that (as for F4U-4) but it was not an operational standard. The AU-1 Corsair of pre Korean War vintage apparently DID fly combat ops w/5,000 pound of combined ordinance (two wing 2,000 pounders plus 8 HVAR rockets)..

[pbfoot]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

But where did Blakeslee and Goodson eventually wind up?????

I don' buy the part about 6000+ US citizens staying with the RCAF or the RAF "just because it was better." I'm sure there were either financial or personal reasons behind this.

from the Legion magazine up here
.....Canada declared war on Germany on Sept. 10, 1939. The Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) had been expanding in anticipation of this; now it fairly exploded, doubling in size within four months. Meanwhile, on Dec. 17, Australia, Britain, Canada and New Zealand signed an agreement creating the British Commonwealth Air Training Plan (BCATP). Canada was about to become a vast air force training centre, with schools from the Atlantic to the Pacific and students from around the globe. Many of those trained would be American citizens.


Initially, the RCAF did not seek out Americans; there were more than enough Canadians volunteering. Moreover, with the United States still neutral, there would be diplomatic problems if American citizens were enlisted, much less courted. However, U.S. nationals began to arrive, motivated by everything from love of adventure to political convictions.

As more BCATP schools opened, the RCAF found itself short of trained pilots. It began looking for experienced Americans to perform non-combat duties. This led to the formation of the semi-secret Clayton Knight Committee, the brainchild of aviation artist Clayton Knight and the RCAF's Director of Recruiting, Air Marshal Billy Bishop VC.

The committee opened its first office in New York's Waldorf Astoria Hotel in the spring of 1940; other bureaus were established in Spokane, Wash., San Francisco, Los Angeles, Dallas, Kansas City, Cleveland, Atlanta, Memphis and San Antonio. Various devices were used to create the fiction that the Clayton Knight Committee was a private advisory unit. In practice it was recruiting Americans on American soil in violation of the Neutrality Act. Moreover, although its goal was to direct trained pilots to Canada, increasingly the committee gave information to untrained Americans who wanted to join the RCAF. These raw recruits constituted 85 per cent of the Americans ultimately enrolled in the RCAF.

One problem was the Oath of Allegiance to King George VI. An American taking the oath could be deemed to have forfeited his U.S. citizenship. In June 1940, Canada waived its Oath of Allegiance for foreign nationals, who henceforth were asked only to take an Oath of Obedience. In other words, they were to follow the rules of military discipline for the duration of their RCAF service.

Training centres began to resonate with American accents; some courses were comprised of 50 per cent of American students. Many more claimed to be Texans than was actually the case; girls who would not have been attracted to somebody from Rhode Island, might find a man from Texas more interesting.

As of Dec. 8, 1941, approximately 6,129 Americans were members of the RCAF. Just over half--3,883--were still undergoing training, but 667 were on operations overseas while others were engaged in flying duties in Canada itself, instructing, flying anti-submarine patrols, etc. With America's entry into the war, RCAF recruiting there ceased and American volunteers began heading for USAAF offices instead. Americans residing in Canada were still being enrolled, however. Ultimately, the RCAF calculated that more than 8,860 U.S. nationals joined that force
Within a month of Pearl Harbor, talks were underway for the transfer of Americans from the RCAF to U.S. flying services. In May and June 1942, a board of Canadian and American officers travelled across Canada by special train, affecting the release of 1,759 Americans from the RCAF and enrolling them simultaneously in American forces. Transfers continued throughout the war. The RCAF calculated that 3,797 Americans switched back to their own national forces. That left 5,263 Americans who elected to stay with the RCAF throughout their service careers.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by pbfoot

Training centres began to resonate with American accents; some courses were comprised of 50 per cent of American students. Many more claimed to be Texans than was actually the case; girls who would not have been attracted to somebody from Rhode Island, might find a man from Texas more interesting.

You have discovered on of the most fundamental 'truths' in the Universe. Einstein observed this and was ready to incorporate into the The General Theory of Relativity.. By similar laws of phsics including strong forces of attraction and repulsion, these learned gentlemen learned to NOT disclose origins such as New York (or 'Joisey'). Many Americans are smarter than given credit for. The ones from New Joisey, who disclosed such early in the courting process often had no opportunity to procreate - until they came home eventually to a female population less discerning..

As of Dec. 8, 1941, approximately 6,129 Americans Approximately PB? what was the exact number - 6, 128.5??"were members of the RCAF. Just over half--3,883--were still undergoing training, but 667 were on operations overseas while others were engaged in flying duties in Canada itself, instructing, flying anti-submarine patrols, etc. With America's entry into the war, RCAF recruiting there ceased and American volunteers began heading for USAAF offices instead. Americans residing in Canada were still being enrolled, however. Ultimately, the RCAF calculated that more than 8,860 U.S. nationals joined that force
Within a month of Pearl Harbor, talks were underway for the transfer of Americans from the RCAF to U.S. flying services. In May and June 1942, a board of Canadian and American officers travelled across Canada by special train, affecting the release of 1,759 Americans from the RCAF and enrolling them simultaneously in American forces. Transfers continued throughout the war. The RCAF calculated that 3,797 Americans switched back to their own national forces. That left 5,263 Americans who elected to stay with the RCAF throughout their service careers .

or were KIA/POW before they had a choice? All kidding aside that is good information..

[pbfoot]

Originally Posted by drgondog

or were KIA/POW before they had a choice? All kidding aside that is good information..

Being from Texas we also gave them allowances for being slower on the uptake
here is alink for the remainder of the article with some info on the more notable Yanks
Legion Magazine :

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by pbfoot

Being from Texas we also gave them allowances for being slower on the uptake
here is alink for the remainder of the article with some info on the more notable Yanks
Legion Magazine :

Yeah, but the Texans were quick - it was the lying Yankees try to get laid that took the curve down - and those 'slower' survivors probably stayed in RCAF

[Soren]

Bill,

1,900 Liter is 503 US Gallons exactly, compared to the maximun of 475 Gallons carried by the -51H. So maximum range would be very similar.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Soren

Bill,

1,900 Liter is 503 US Gallons exactly, compared to the maximun of 475 Gallons carried by the -51H. So maximum range would be very similar.

Soren, why do you suppose that Tank put so much internal fuel in this very good interceptor? and why so much more than the Dora?

Can you point me to some references that might shed light on Ta 152 to look at specific fuel consumption in cruise for example?

I suspect that would be very tough to find but even if lower than the 51 it could not be significant - meaning it would for all practical purposes have the same range as the 51.

[renrich]

Bill, I admit my writing skills are lacking as far as making myself clear. After I have written it I sometimes have difficulty understanding the point I was trying to make. My intention in the beginning re this thread was to demonstrate one of the qualitative achievements by the US which(in my opinion)stood head and shoulders above the rest of the world. That achievement was to design, build and produce a fighter which could successfully operate from carriers but could also compete on an even basis, on balance, with all other fighters in the world from 1942 through 1945. That AC was, I believe, inarguably the best fighter bomber of the war(the ability to perform as a fighter bomber or multi-role fighter came to be the role the majority of all fighters aspired to be) and arguably was the best recip fighter of the war and arguably came to be the best recip fighter of all time. It is in the context of best recip of all time that I bring up the F4U5. As far as best recip fighter bomber we should perhaps use the F4U7. My numbers for the F4U5 come from "The Great Book of WW2 Airplanes" They may not be accurate but the numbers on the F4U4 in that book jibe pretty well with Dean's "America's Hundred Thousand." The numbers in "The Great Book of WW2 Airplanes" on the TA152 show that on paper the F4U4 or 5 compete well with that AC. There may be some figures on the various Corsairs which are anomalous floating around. Richard Linnekin, a former Navy fighter pilot, test pilot and aero engineer remarks about that in his book,"Eighty Knots to Mach 2" If you have not read that book, I heartily encourage you to find it as it is a great read if you like air planes. He only flew combat in Korea and Viet Nam(he was in surface ships in WW2) but his remarks about ACM would be educational for many on this forum. I suspect that a lot of the performance figures we quote on this forum are suspect and relatively meaningless but what the heck, that is about all we have to go on since few have the background and the experience that you have. Hope I have explained my reference to the F4U5.

[fly boy]

the one thing the russins had that was better then the germans was the t-34 tank

and it us army air force

[drgondog]

Rich - I agree with nearly all your points.

What I have done in the past is make a studied judgement on 'best' based on a lot of my criteria, then get bogged down in justifying it in other areas where it maybe wasn't "best' but at end of day was 'good enough'.

The F4U-4 is that airplane for me.. but using the case of the Ta 152H-1 I can't argue that it wasn't 'best' unless you take into account that except for design and performance it was 'insignificant' just like the P-80 which was in most cases except maybe range and ceiling, was 'better' than the Ta 152.

I suspect LW pilots after flying the P-80 would have embraced it if the other choice was Fw 190D or Ta 152..

Relative to the ETO, the Corsair wasn't the 'best' because it was mostly no-show and insignificant' in same way as Ta 152.

For me the Mustang was most Important but not the 'best' against Germany because it did what no other Allied Fighter could do - namely make US Strategic Bombing doctrine a success and kill more German pilots and a/c in the process.

Stacked against the F4U in Pacific it can't be judged the 'best'..

So this forum is a great place to argue whatever points we want to make.

Regards Rich,

Bill

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by fly boy

the one thing the russins had that was better then the germans was the t-34 tank

Wrong thread.....

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I guess this forum is too "Redneck" for claidemore as well.

[syscom3]

One thing that the US had an advantage in over all of the other combatants was the many varied types that had advantages (as well as disadvantages) that allowed the AAF and USN find niche roles for them in which they excelled.

In 1944, the US had 5 principal fighter types, three (and soon to be four) heavy bombers, four twin engine bombers, and three transports.

What did the others have compared tot he US?

[Marcel]

Originally Posted by syscom3

One thing that the US had an advantage in over all of the other combatants was the many varied types that had advantages (as well as disadvantages) that allowed the AAF and USN find niche roles for them in which they excelled.

In 1944, the US had 5 principal fighter types, three (and soon to be four) heavy bombers, four twin engine bombers, and three transports.

What did the others have compared tot he US?

Eh more standardisation and thus less presure on logistics?

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by Marcel

Eh more standardisation and thus less presure on logistics?

The US war machine was so vast, only the AAF and USN could have so many different types and still be able to provide the spares and the ground crews to keep them flying.