drgondog
Major
Joe - dead on. They didn't wear them for style or comfort.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
And yet I remember that the pilots of the Natter were expected to black out at take off hence the automatic pilot. But they would be laying on their back, no?Having the pilot completely on his back or stomach would've largely eliminated black outs, but this wasn't really possible to technically achieve in 1940's.
And yet I remember that the pilots of the Natter were expected to black out at take off hence the automatic pilot. But they would be laying on their back, no?
Kris
And yet I remember that the pilots of the Natter were expected to black out at take off hence the automatic pilot. But they would be laying on their back, no?
Kris
drgondog said:As to the EZ42 - what was the basis for 'superiority'. Source?
Both slaved to gyro, both tuned to boresight,
50 cal more efficient ballistically and therfore more margin for error when 'ring' not set correctly.
Yes, that is completely true. Like Adler said, it wasn't the best fighter plane of WW2 simply because there is no such thing as the best. Beside the range there were other things which made it the success it was. American pilots were the best trained in the world. Couple that with optimized tactics for aggressive boom and zoom fighting. And it's true that certain planes are better at certain altitudes but that wasn't the case for the Mustang as it was faster than German planes at any altitude. And speed was its main weapon. Being able to outpace any adversary means you always have the initiative. Put all that together with excellent tactics and a flying range which allows you to roam all over Germany for hours and you've got yourself a devestating weapon.
Kris
Drgondog said:The Fw190D was the first piston engine German fighter that legitimately was the equal (or better) of the P-51 B/C/D at all altitudes..
Well, maybe in your hands. It had severe low altitude deficiencies compared to some other late war aircraft, especially in speed and probably in climb.Soren said:In terms of piston engined fighters the Ta-152H-1 takes the prize hands down, but again low fuel numbers also made sure this baby didn't seriously affect the war.
Next comes the FW-190 Dora-9 which IMO was the best series produced fighter of WW2, featuring much better maneuverability than the P-51, P-47 P-38, its main rivals over Germany, as-well as being faster at most altitudes. But yet again it was out-numbered in the air and fuel was low.
Even so the only aircraft which could've turned the tide in favor of the Germans was the Me-262, had it been available in numbers by the beginning of 1944 as-well as granted the fighter-role by the Führer by this time then it could've turned the tide. Could it have won the war for the Germans ? No I don't believe so, esp. not with Hitler in command, but it would've prolonged the war to a point where an invasion of Germany would've proven way too costly and other more drastic measures had to be taken - so lets consider ourselves lucky that didn't happen.
The P-51 used a laminar flow airfoil though, and while the sharper and more symmetric profile of this type of airfoil helped decrease drag allot it also lowered the lift compared to the ordinary type airfoil.
So yeah the early G-suit did give novice pilots an advantage, but for experienced pilots it wasn't really necessary, esp. not by 1944-45 where seven G's was very rarely exceeded - Me-262 pilots I bet would've loved to have it though as it would've proven VERY useful in the speed regimes they were flying. So ofcourse in Korea the G-suit was very important as seven G's was regularly exceeded.
Davparlr, I'm with you all the way with that post!
It's all the more surprising when you notice that the P-51B was a year older than the Dora. If needed the Americans could have come up with new fighter variants to counter anything the Germans would throw at them.
Kris
Where have you heard this ?
What were they supposed to black out from ? Accelleration ? Not really possible.
Many of the late war German designs had the pilot lay on his stomach, why?, because this will greatly reduce the risk of black outs, the blood not being directly pulled towards your legs.
FLYBOYJ,
I know that pilots liked the Mk.III G-suit, it was allot more comfortable to wear than the MK.II, but as Dr. Wilbur Rounding Franks says himself the G-suit only helped pilots withstand G-forces of up to six G's, something a experienced pilot can withstand without a G-suit. So yeah the early G-suit did give novice pilots an advantage, but for experienced pilots it wasn't really necessary, esp. not by 1944-45 where seven G's was very rarely exceeded - Me-262 pilots I bet would've loved to have it though as it would've proven VERY useful in the speed regimes they were flying. So ofcourse in Korea the G-suit was very important as seven G's was regularly exceeded.
Why are you talking about the Franks suit anyway - the Berger was the dominant USAAF G suit and it was absolutely superior to 'no G suit' - independent of how much experience the pilot has. As noted, nobody wore them for style - but everybody wore them by choice.
Like I said the source is an Allied test report.
Which report. Where? What were the evaluation criteria?
Nonesense Bill, the MG-151/20 featured similar ballistics, gaining the edge as range increases.
my remarks were focused on the EZ 42 in the Me262 - which was dominantly 30 mm... having said that, the SD of the 20mm you show is misleading as it does not take into consideration the drag characteristics of the 20 versus the 50. What is the BC of the 20MM?
And what kind of logic lets you to the conclusion that because the .50 cal has better ballistics there is therefore more margin for error ??? The primitive computer is calibrated to the exact ballistics of the particular weapon used, so what'ever error might occur will be similar for any weapon used.
As such, most historians consider the P-51 as the most significant fighter due to its impact on the war.
As anyone knows who has done much shooting with a rifle, the flatter shooting a load is, the easier or less critical, range estimation becomes. That has always been one of the strong points of the .50 BMG round. With a muzzle velocity of around 2800 fps and a very high ballistic coefficent(my handloading manuals are packed so can't look it up) it is a very flat shooting load. When first beginning to handlaod, it was hard to believe that a 700 grain .50 BMG bullet at 2800 fps had a flatter trajectory than a 150 grain caliber .30 bullet with the same muzzle velocity. But it is incomparably flatter shooting. Just from memory, the BC of the .50 is twice that of the .30 assuming they are both spitzer bullets.
When the Fw-190D-9 appeared in late 44', the P-51B was generally faster at all altitudes than the D-9 and significantly so above 15K ft. Climb rates were similar. The Fw-190D-9 was superior to the P-51D up to 25K ft., but the P-51 had better performance above 25K ft. with significantly greater speed. The Fw-190D-9 was not equal to or better than the P-51B above 20K, or the P-51D above 25K.
Dave I believe the Fw 190D was superior in turn and roll below 20,000 feet from both the few performance tests and the anecdotal comments that I've herd from people who flew both.. climb and acceleration essentially the same, 51D dived faster initially and the 51D was faster... your points are still essentilly correct or mine re slightly incorrect - but the matchup is close. The 51H was better in everything except roll from the performance extrapolations - and the Fw190D-13 was better at high altitude (>30,000 ft)than the 51H if the German test figures are correct and the 3 stage turbo was working.
The real point is that the 51D was competitive depending on pilot and tactical situation with all the German piston engine a/c - even the Ta 152 in a similr way that an Me 109G was 'competitive' with a 51B/C/D.
The D-9 was excellent at low altitude but roughly equivalent in performance to the P-51B (<20K). Above that the P-51B is much faster with a better climb rate. Above 25k, the P-51D is clearly faster with equivalent climb. And of course it would be hard pressed against a contemporary F4U-4 at any altitude.
I'm always tempted to wonder about the future of the airwar in 1943 in ETO if the USAAF had adopted the F4U.
Yes, experienced pilot could handle this.
But an experienced pilot with a G-suit (Berger or Franks) could simply handle more for a longer period of time. That will work for you in dive recovery and a turning fight just about every time
I think most WWII aircraft were stressed to similar levels as Korean aircraft and I find it hard to believe a WWII pilot would not use the most of his aircraft like a Korean pilot. In fact, I don't think an F-4 is stressed to a higher level than the Bf-109. Speed means you can ramp up gs faster but not necessarily get higher gs.
As to the EZ42 - what was the basis for 'superiority'. Source?
Both slaved to gyro, both tuned to boresight, 50 cal more efficient ballistically and therfore more margin for error when 'ring' not set correctly.
Originally Posted by Drgondog
The Fw190D was the first piston engine German fighter that legitimately was the equal (or better) of the P-51 B/C/D at all altitudes..
It would be just nice to see some ballistic tables, similiar to that available for German rounds. I don`t quite get the reason for such tense debate on a marginal thing tough, efficients and such... practical shooting range limit was about 300 yards/meters, and usually even less against small sized aircraft. You did not need excessive ballistic performance for such short range shooting. This whole .50/20mm debate is a bit bizarre, like arguing in favour of the long range qualities of a 30-06 bolt action sniper rifle vs. a semi-automatic shotgun... ...in a close-quarters battle, that is.
Agreed - but a lot of shots were taken beyond bore sight range and aircraft downed.. who really knows how much the ballistic efficiency played a role.
The analogy might be better if we are talking about holding a .375 above the head of an elk at 400 yards with a crosswind versus on the top of the shoulder at the neck with 340 Wby for the same shot - I have made both shots and like both rifles - just have to compensate a little more with the 250yd zero for both rifles.
The 109G-x/AS versions were perfectly comparable to the P-51, and they appeared the same time as the P-51..
Also agreed but the 51 flew 500-600 miles to battle on equal terms
BTW, do you have some sort of 'on hand figures' for P-51s with operational 8/15th AAF groups? I am trying to establish the 'rate of appearance' of the Mustang. I have seen some figures fromthe USAAF Stat. digest, but those appear to me including other stuff as well (storage, reserves etc.). I understand the Mustang appeared in December 1943 but initially it did not equip too many fighter groups.