Pick 6 a/c to build your AF at beginning WWII

[Soren]

Originally Posted by drgondog

So, Soren - are your carriers just populated with F4U's for anti shipping, ASW and AirCAP or? and is the 'ensign killer' your choice for basic and primary flight training? Is the Ar-232 your multi engine flight trainer for B-29?

The Ar-232 I'm sure would be a good trainer, even eing used by the British after war as a transport a/c and being noted for its great flying characteristics. As for fighter pilot training well the FW-190 was used as a trainer by the Germans during the war with great success, a good number of two seaters being built, so no problem there. Also the FW-190, F4U & Ta-152H were known as pilots airplanes so I think they'd be excellent for that first solo flight, esp. the Ta-152H with its very low stall speed, kommandogerät & auto pilot would be a great solo trainer.

Are you picking Germany for the strategic profile/national purpose? If so, do you need to have a carrier fighter in addition to the three other excellent fighter choices.

Hehe I didn't know we had to pick a country, I just picked the a/c I'd need most in my AF if I was to have a more widespread international influence.

One thing for sure - you will be hell on other air forces and, as long as the B-29 ops doesn't exceed 600-700 mi radius, you have a chance to achieve air superiority 'over there' - if you can graduate any pilots out of basic.. lot of smoking holes in ground when first flight is solo in one of those birds.

Can we say "whoa Nellie? and hard right foot on the rudder" on that first take-off (with either the 190, the Ta 152 or F4U).

As long as the preflight instructions are good enough there should be no problems, and yes ofcourse with fighters so powerful much right rudder would be needed for full power take offs.

[Marcel]

Originally Posted by drgondog

How do your guys learn how to fly? Lol

With this?

[Njaco]

CFS .001?

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Soren

The Ar-232 I'm sure would be a good trainer, even eing used by the British after war as a transport a/c and being noted for its great flying characteristics. As for fighter pilot training well the FW-190 was used as a trainer by the Germans during the war with great success, a good number of two seaters being built, so no problem there. Also the FW-190, F4U & Ta-152H were known as pilots airplanes so I think they'd be excellent for that first solo flight, esp. the Ta-152H with its very low stall speed, kommandogerät & auto pilot would be a great solo trainer.



Hehe I didn't know we had to pick a country, I just picked the a/c I'd need most in my AF if I was to have a more widespread international influence.

As long as the preflight instructions are good enough there should be no problems, and yes ofcourse with fighters so powerful much right rudder would be needed for full power take offs.

No pre flight 'instruction' set will prepare a student to hop into something like an F4U (in my opinion) I think a docile twin with very good s/e flight characteristics would be a better choice than a 'live single' like the AT-6 if only one was in your fleet.. but that's why I picked the AT-6 and the C-47. Having feet on rudders and hand on stick/wheel under mentorship of an instructor next to you is really important in going from zero to first flight.

I doubt that my old man, with his time and experience, would have been unable to fly the Dora and 109 (I think K) but it had to be an easier transition with the two seat Fw and Me 109 at Gablingen post VE Day. I know that with my limited time it would have been a far more formidable transition to just hop in, have an instructor, tell me what to do - then do it alone on first flight... for even an a/c like the Fw 190 with its nice characteristics?

I don't know anything about the AR-232 Soren so don't have a feel for how it stacks up against a C-47, etc.

But yeah, pick a country and it's perceived doctrine before picking your six ships - it helps narrow the choices down. I really like how Pb didn't try to be all things in his selection of Canada in the framework of the Commonwealth.

If you Pick germany you are better off not goofing around trying to build a long range Daylight strategic mission w/B-29A because you probably need a pull in a 2000+ mile target escort capability but you could do B-29A for night missions and maybe not have a long range escort fighter? for example.

I'm curious to see what the mix is if someone propses Nationalist China or USSR or Italy or Finland (or Switzerland trying to stay neutral) or Spain thinking about joining the Axis?

But given the tactical doctrine of Germany it seems hard to escape throwing a Ju 88 (or equivalent), etc into your mix to address medium, tactical, anti shipping, long range fighter, etc.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Marcel

With this?

I guess that IS the 1940 version of IL2 Flight Sim..

Marcel, on the other hand - anyone want to volunteer stepping out of that and into an F4U-4, (or Ta 152), have the instructor patiently explain (and explain again) what will help you survive your solo first flight?

[pbfoot]

This trainer thing where people are saying that you could solo in a high performance fighter is for lack of others words nuts. you could have the mind of einstein the reflexes of a professional athlete and Orville Wright giving you flight lessons and not 1 in 10 would survive their first flight

[Wildcat]

Originally Posted by drgondog

One of the struggles I have about B-29 is airfield preparation and logistic requirements. If your base is primarily Australia/New Zealand this is a non issue but until the bases are taken to strike Japan the B-24 and Lancaster would be pretty hard to beat. For`ANZAC I wonder if either a B-24 or Lanc is a better Choice or even a Mossie XVI?

If you have a Pappy Gunn in RAAF you could probably put a field modifies 'hard nose' on the Mossie and extend the versatility. Just wouldn't have the range to do mine laying until Iwo Jima taken.. I'm assuming mine laying not truly effective until you can saturate Japan waters and ports?

All good points Bill, I picked those a/c for initial ops around Australian waters and New Guinea and New Britain. I was envisaging the B-29s to be based in Oz for around the clock operations against Rabaul. To complement this a portion of my B29 force would be used to heavily mine Simpson Harbour (Rabaul), this would hopefully block in (and more importantly, out) Japanese shipping which would then be subjected to attackes by rocket firing Beaufighters and Mustangs (most likely based on Kiriwina Is) and occasional night strikes by "Black cats". This would be repeated in other Japanese held Harbours in New Britain/New Ireland and parts of New Guniea held by the Japanese. The B29's would also be employed against oil refineries in Balikpapan therefore hopefully knocking out a major source of oil for the Japanese.
Agreed with your comment about the PBM, to tell the truth I totally forgot about it! In hindsight would probably be a better choice then the PBY as it can fill all the roles assigned to the Catalina but would also be useful in the transport role and has a longer range then the Cat.
No doubt there's flaws in all this, but as I just finished night shift, it's all my feeble brain could come up with.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by pbfoot

This trainer thing where people are saying that you could solo in a high performance fighter is for lack of others words nuts. you could have the mind of einstein the reflexes of a professional athlete and Orville Wright giving you flight lessons and not 1 in 10 would survive their first flight

It sure would not have worked for me. I had time in a cessna 150, a Beech V-35 and an AT-6 - solo in all before riding around a lot in the back seat of a modified 51. It is a very forgiving airplane in some ways but you just screw up once. What is in my opinion impossible to talk about and teach - is the first time 'feel' of really powerful ship like a Ta 152 or F4U. No muscle memory or point of reference - just hop in statrt er' up, give it throttle - and lose control/over correct and die.

( I have zero time in either - but physics of lots of power to torque a prop one way while the fuselage wants to 'compensate' in the opposite roll direction is not taught on IL-2 Sim!), particularly in full power take off and first set up and landing.

My first experience with the 51 on a landing was forgetting to fly it to a point on the threshold and ending up floating in ground effect about halfway down the runway before carefully throttling it up and going around for a 'smarter' landing.

I'm sure there are 'natural' pilots that would have done better but the attrition rate of even very talented guys on first take off (ever) at 60 inches of Hg would not have been pretty.

That is my hardest compromise which is why I picked a powerful (two seater) s/e trainer and a C-47 as my dual/multi engine compromise. I think that a mentor program with a lot more 'follow me through this' with a light hand and foot in an AT-6 could get most of the students (and instructors) through Basic and Primary - including instrument time then the trash haulers would migrate to Gooney Bird (or AR-232) before going to B-29 (another large leap).

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Wildcat

All good points Bill, I picked those a/c for initial ops around Australian waters and New Guinea and New Britain. I was envisaging the B-29s to be based in Oz for around the clock operations against Rabaul. To complement this a portion of my B29 force would be used to heavily mine Simpson Harbour (Rabaul), this would hopefully block in (and more importantly, out) Japanese shipping which would then be subjected to attackes by rocket firing Beaufighters and Mustangs (most likely based on Kiriwina Is) and occasional night strikes by "Black cats". This would be repeated in other Japanese held Harbours in New Britain/New Ireland and parts of New Guniea held by the Japanese. The B29's would also be employed against oil refineries in Balikpapan therefore hopefully knocking out a major source of oil for the Japanese.
Agreed with your comment about the PBM, to tell the truth I totally forgot about it! In hindsight would probably be a better choice then the PBY as it can fill all the roles assigned to the Catalina but would also be useful in the transport role and has a longer range then the Cat.
No doubt there's flaws in all this, but as I just finished night shift, it's all my feeble brain could come up with.

I liked your thought processes about specifying the 'mission' within the Commonwealth and building your Airpower aound the delivery.

I thought and hard about Germany - It wouldn't and shouldn't invest in the B-29A. While it was excellent choice for strategic ops and would have been nice - it would have been a huge investment in raw materials and inserted into a doctine that nobody in the Luftwaffe was committed to.

If I had the six choices I have to be able to attack tactically and strategically 600-1000 miles from my permanent bases and be able to operate so that I can move with the Wermacht. I think the options narrow to variants of Ju-88 or Mossie

I want long range very high performance interceptor if possible, and want one that can operate night or day if possible. I have to maintain control over my airspace and over the tactical AOA to deny my opponents a free hand at my army. So if I can get long range day and night interceptor in one airframe and short range extremely high performance day/night/fighter bomber combination (Me 262a-1? two seater, radar equipped, external racks for fuel) plus a P-38L/M or F7F I think two of those fighters offer attack, ground support, high performance intercept, night fighter compliment, recce, anti shipping.

If someone could convince me that a Ta 152 could perform escort on a target 600-1000 miles away, or carry 1,000 pounds of bombs 300 miles and back I would pick it and go with either the F4U or F7F as my All purpose compliment to it and might reject the 262 in favor of the Ta 152.. "might". It would leave me with single seat night fighters which I need to think about.

So if I pick the two fighters and the Mossie or Ju88, that leaves me with three remaining.

Troop logistics and re-supply leads to C-46 if I think I can also limp in with dual seat trainer role.

What would you pick with Germany's resource position, Tactical mission, air superiority requirements for the last two chices if you agree mine - or which series would you pick instead??

[Njaco]

This trainer thing where people are saying that you could solo in a high performance fighter is for lack of others words nuts. you could have the mind of einstein the reflexes of a professional athlete and Orville Wright giving you flight lessons and not 1 in 10 would survive their first flight

I was thinking the same thing Pb. Fws were used as trainers after they became familiar with other types. Awful hard to start on the 190 especially after getting out of that box.

[davparlr]

F4U-4 carrier ops, air-to-ground, air-to-air.
P-51D long range escort, long range interdiction, air-to-air
C-47 airlift
Me-262 interceptor
B-29 all bombing (complete with atomic bomb)
T-6 trainer.

[Soren]

Guys,

The FW-190 S-8 was used as a primary trainer for LW fighter pilots, NOT a secondary one, and it worked great being a very easy a/c to fly. And as to theory that the first solo flights in these a/c being suicide runs, well that's just ridiculous, many of the Finnish fighter pilots flew their first solo flights in a Bf-109G, and many LW pilots had their first solo flights in a fighter as-well.

Two seater 109's & 190's were the rpimary training a/c used by the LW for training its young pilots.

As a matter of fact, there were quite a few LW bomber pilots transferred over to the Jagdgeschwaders to fly fighters, and that was solo on their very first flight in a fighter. But with preflight instructions they did just fine as far as taking off & landing, the rest (Proficiency) came with experience.

Fws were used as trainers after they became familiar with other types.

Exactly what gave you that idea Njaco?

[Soren]

Bill,

The Ar-232 was the first truly modern transport a/c and it combined high speed, ceiling & range with great loading capability and versatility. And because of a genius flap design the Ar-232 only needed a 200m take off run with a 8,000 kg cargo load!

And because of its excellent flying characteristics & ample excess power it was a good trainer as-well. The Ar-232 was used post war by the RAF as a transport a/c and as the basis for their own future designs.

Ar-232B


Anyway starting over again I pick Germany because of its central position in Europe and the LW doctrine with the following a/c:

Ta-152H-1 = Offensive air superiority fighter, escort fighter, high alt interceptor & recce.
FW-190 = Primary air superiority fighter, fighter bomber, interceptor & trainer.
Ju-388 = Nightfighter, destroyer, ground attack a/c, medium bomber, AT shipping & recce.
Ar-232 = Transport & trainer.
Me-262 = Interceptor, night fighter & air-superiority fighter.
B-29 = High alt strategic bomber.

Could I situate Germany where I wanted I'd have probably picked Spain.

[Njaco]

Soren, almost every diary I've read about LW pilots had them start training on other types like Bu 33 or similar.

But,

Now that you mention the 2 seat FW I do recall that was also the case. I am in error.

[pbfoot]

Soren can you please show me something that states the 190 was used a primary trainer I've references that it was used as a conversion trainer (the bridge between advanced and operational training) but primary thats unbelivable