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

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by 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.

Dave - will you use F4U for heavy lifting in air assault on surface fleets?

I am assuming you are picking US as the only difference in mission structure/capability is my choice of F7F over my 'beloved' Mustang (I would have picked P-51H over D however, it was being delivered operationall in US in March 1945 so it counts). If someone wanted to be picky, the 51D did pass preliminary carrier trials.

I wanted a torpedo capable, versatile and agile, fighter that actually was used as night fighter, had very long range and extremely good conventional performance.

Most of the Navy/USMC jocks that flew this ship raved about it.

[Soren]

Pbfoot,

The primary trainer for the LW from 1934 to 1943 (Still used allot in 44 -45) was the Go-145, but by 1944 to 1945 many pilots didn't even get to fly this and went straight to flying the high powered fighters, the S-5/8 being the trainer version of the FW-190. In the end there simply wasn't time to train pilots anywhere near as thuroughly as in the beginning and up untill the middle of the war, so a step in the education process was removed.

You'll be surprised to know how little experience with fighters and a/c in general many of the pilots who initially started flying the Me-262 had, and the experienced pilots were simply just rushed into it without anything but a few pre-flight instructions on acceleration and throttle control.

[Soren]

Bill,

Forgot to mention that in case I needed a carrier fighter the Ta-152H-1 was the perfect candidate with its very low stall speed, high load carrying capability, range and very high agility & performance.

In short with the Ta-152H-1 I would have a world beater in piston engined fighters.

The Me-262 would prove important as an air-superiority fighter & interceptor as-well, and with two 300 L droptanks it could be used as an escort along with the Ta-152 for my B-29's. It would also prove essential for defending my AF because of its exceptionally lethal armament against bombers.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Soren

Pbfoot,

The primary trainer for the LW from 1934 to 1943 (Still used allot in 44 -45) was the Go-145, but by 1944 to 1945 many pilots didn't even get to fly this and went straight to flying the high powered fighters, the S-5/8 being the trainer version of the FW-190. In the end there simply wasn't time to train pilots anywhere near as thuroughly as in the beginning and up untill the middle of the war, so a step in the education was removed.

You'll be surprised to know how little experience with fighters and a/c in general many of the pilots who initially started flying the Me-262 had, and the experienced pilots were simply just rushed into it without anything but a few pre-flight instructions on acceleration and throttle control.

Soren - in this exercise you get to start 'fresh in 1939 with any aircraft put into production and don't have to start in desparate times for LW if that is what you choose.

[Soren]

I'm sure the FW-190 S-5/8 is all I'd need in terms of a trainer for fighter pilots, it's a two seater so the instructor will ofcourse perform the first few take off's & landings with the student carefully paying attention, and then when the student gives it his first try the intructor can keep an eye out and make sure everything goes as it should, being able to intervene immediately. Ofcourse the Ar-232 could be used as-well for some of the basics being a very easy to operate a/c with great & forgiving flying characteristics. (Would also hugely minimize landing accidents because of its millipede gear & flap system)

[pbfoot]

I must ask have you ever flown , alls your going to get by using a 190 as a trainer is a decimation of the gene pool but the aero industry would love it as they would be going balls to the wall building them to replace all the one that crashed

[Soren]

Yes I fly pbfoot, do you ?

alls your going to get by using a 190 as a trainer is a decimation of the gene pool but the aero industry would love it as they would be going balls to the wall building them to replace all the one that crashed

Got anything to back that up with ???

The FW-190 S-5/8 was a two seater with two control columns and instrumentation panels, thus the instructor was always in control. Furthermore the FW-190 featured the kommandogerät computer which automatically controls fuel mixture & propeller pitch, relieving the pilot of allot of work making it that much simpler for the student.

So the FW-190 S-5/8 would do fine as trainer, just like it did in WW2.

[magnocain]

I might be stretching the rules just a bit...

BV 222 Wiking: transport and long range recon (3787 miles)
Ju 390: all-around bomber including trans continental, marine patrol, atomic, strategic, tactical, recon, and night bomber... also inland transport
F4U-5: carrier fighter, escort fighter, night fighter, superiority fighter, fighter-bomber, ground attack, anti-shiping, and interceptor
TBF Avenger: carrier bomber, torpedo bomber, light bomber, anti-shipping, anti-sub, light transport
T-6:trainer, army co-op (armed)
P-80: interceptor, superiority fighter


My nation has the land now called Ireland.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Soren

Bill,

Forgot to mention that in case I needed a carrier fighter the Ta-152H-1 was the perfect candidate with its very low stall speed, high load carrying capability, range and very high agility & performance.

In short with the Ta-152H-1 I would have a world beater in piston engined fighters.

The Me-262 would prove important as an air-superiority fighter & interceptor as-well, and with two 300 L droptanks it could be used as an escort along with the Ta-152 for my B-29's. It would also prove essential for defending my AF because of its exceptionally lethal armament against bombers.

Soren - actually I would have picked it also except my rules were 'version' in production which is why I picked the two seat night fighter Me-262a-1(?). I didn't know the Ta 152 (or say Fw 190D-9) were actually equipped to land on a carrier? I would have tried to put the 262 into day interceptor and ground support depending on it's external rack capability (good enough if 25okg each)

Additionally, one of the negative comments on the 51 was the poor visibilty over the nose on landing (like the F4U) which would have been a Ta 152H negative for USN evaluators. I'm pretty sure the USN's last 'long nose' fighter was the F4U

So, I gotta throw the penalty flag for sneaking a very pretty 'ringer' into the equation. If you want carrier air you'll have to go in another direction?

[pbfoot]

Originally Posted by Soren

Yes I fly pbfoot, do you ?



Got anything to back that up with ???

The FW-190 S-5/8 was a two seater with two control columns and instrumentation panels, thus the instructor was always in control. Furthermore the FW-190 featured the kommandogerät computer which automatically controls fuel mixture & propeller pitch, relieving the pilot of allot of work making it that much simpler for the student.

So the FW-190 S-5/8 would do fine as trainer, just like it did in WW2.

Yeap I did but I learned not to be cocky about challenging gravity

[Soren]

Bill,

The long nose of the Ta-152H would be a problem just like it was with the F4U, however the lower stall speed would be a welcome improvement.

As to the FW-190 being carrier capable, absolutely! Ofcourse it needed a number of modifications, just like the Spitfire did, but it was already a much stronger airframe.

Pbfoot,

Did you crash? Hopefully not too badly.

[Glider]

I would have serious concerns about using any two seat version of a Fighter, be it a Spit, 109, 190, P51 as a trainer.
Conversion trainer and tactical trainer certainly, but not as a trainer to teach someone to fly.

They tend to be hot aircraft and often the view from the rear seat is very poor.

Sounds like a good way to lose a lot of aircraft, pupils and more importantly Instructors

[Soren]

Well the a/c doesn't have to be run at full power you know, and as long as the instructor in the back can control the aircraft as-well there shouldn't be too many problems. But yeah a plane like the Go-145 & AT-6 would be better as trainers, no doubt about it.

The Ar-232 would be a good trainer as-well.

Why can't we pick 7 a/c ?

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by magnocain

I might be stretching the rules just a bit...

BV 222 Wiking: transport and long range recon (3787 miles)
Ju 390: all-around bomber including trans continental, marine patrol, atomic, strategic, tactical, recon, and night bomber... also inland transport
F4U-5: carrier fighter, escort fighter, night fighter, superiority fighter, fighter-bomber, ground attack, anti-shiping, and interceptor
TBF Avenger: carrier bomber, torpedo bomber, light bomber, anti-shipping, anti-sub, light transport
T-6:trainer, army co-op (armed)
P-80: interceptor, superiority fighter


My nation has the land now called Ireland.

Was the Ju 390 in production before VE day (EOW for Germany)

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Soren

Bill,

The long nose of the Ta-152H would be a problem just like it was with the F4U, however the lower stall speed would be a welcome improvement.

As to the FW-190 being carrier capable, absolutely! Ofcourse it needed a number of modifications, just like the Spitfire did, but it was already a much stronger airframe.

Pbfoot,

Did you crash? Hopefully not too badly.

Soren - lol - you don't get to 'modify' or take and entire series as one choice. That's why I took only the twin seat night fighter version of the Me 262. So, you have to have a Fw 190 vesrion that passed carrier trails as your only one for all Fw 190 roles.. Ditto Ta 152H-1, for example.

I'm wondering if that is the designation of the Fw 190 two seater my father flew before trying the Dora at Gablingen? I'll post a pic (but think I already have in the 355th Photo post I put up)