[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by shadow boxer [/i]
[B]Eh... Thundebolts... yick
Very typical American approach... big, ugly, thirsty, brutish, flying tanks, gunned up into overkill territory and handles like a full laden Caddilac.
The reason why they dive so well is because they are bricks with wings. The two things that saved them from the Japs was the fact that they did fall in a controlled fashion faster than the Zeros could and they could take some punishment.
The Zero's could easily fly rings around the Thunderbolt and the only reason why P-47's werent falling out of the sky in flocks was that the Hayabusa's had pissy guns.
The Germans also liked to dine on Thunderbolts.
Woe betide you if you're a P-47 pilot at low altitude.
The other factor was the P47's teeth. You can't argue with 6 or 8 .50 cals. When a poor AAF pilot managed to get a zero in his gunsight he did have a very good chance of clipping the wings off his target.
I have no love for the P47. They should have been relegated to ground attack long before they did. Oh yeah... and if you pit P-51 against P-47 with equally skilled pilots, you P-47 is going down, a Mustang still had 6x.50 cals.
The Jug was simply a big mistake that the US spent the rest of the war compensating for. [/B][/QUOTE]
Then why did the highest scoring aces of the USAAF in the ETO fly T-bolts?
In fact the highest scoring fighter group in the ETO for the USAAF was the 56th Fighter Group, which destroyed 1006 German aircraft against a loss of 128 T-bolts
while the P-47 did suck at low altitude, it also could climb at over 3000 feet per minute sans ordance from the deck, meaning you werent going to catch it down low for too long. Also perportionatly we lost less thunderbolts then we lost mustangs.
In one infamous encounter P-47 driver Don Whinnem knocked down ace Glenn Eagleston (over 20 kills) in a incident of mistaken identity, Eagleston mistook the P-47 for a FW-190, and open fire and Whinnem retaliated outmanuvered the P-51 and sent it limping home, where it ulimtatly crashed before landing, fortunatly for Eagleston he was able to bail out. The P-47 despite being hit, continued on its mission :P
Then again T-bolts were known to shrug off multiple 20mm hits.
so 6 .50's might not cut it :P
They had the snot shot out of them regularly, but thankfully there were another 5000 recycled pots and pans between the shell and something important on the aircraft.
Dont forget the Germans spent alot of the air war over Europe heavily outnumbered, underfueled and often underpiloted. Kids who knew roughly what a rudder was were thrown into aircraft and sent up against well trained, fresh pilots in well maintained aircraft. A 15 year old kid with his droptank still attached, in a flat spin and totally out of control isn't a valid 'kill'... (no diss to the T-bolt pilot, but the point is made).
Lets also make sure everyone knows that you Yanks showed up late to the party. Where were you guys during the battle of Britain hmmm ?
Mopping up is something T-bolts would be good for... :P
Throwing raw statistics at me isnt going to make much difference mate...:)
I wonder how many T-bolt pilots came home with very empty magazines, after blurting all their ammo at the nippy little bastard krauts. It's good to be able to dive out of a dogfight and use your superior speed to get the hell out of there when you've run out of ammo, cos you cant keep the beggars in your gunsight long enough.
Also... as you know, the 'Stang entered the war far too late to do much good, nor rack up impressive kill tallies.
Put it this way, if the 'Stang came on stream 2 years earlier, T-bolts would be hunting what was left of the german armour and blowing up fuel dumps and bridges...
...in fact, I view them as the WW2 version of the Warthog in wrong role.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by shadow boxer [/i]
[B]
Lets also make sure everyone knows that you Yanks showed up late to the party. Where were you guys during the battle of Britain hmmm ?
[/B][/QUOTE]
sipping martinis and dancing all nighters, reading about it in the papers ;)
come on now, which foreign policy would you prefer from us Americans, waiting until the last possible to minute to enter a war, or going around starting our own over oil?
seriously though, In the late 30's and early 40's the US tried to remain out of the affairs of the Europeans, we had an isolationist policy. That did not however stop us from sending those wacky brits men and materials to help fight their war. By the end of 1941 when the Japanese bombed pearl, you have to understand that the states were quite close to joining you anyway, it may have taken another 6 months but we would have been there.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by SpiritOne [/i]
[B]That did not however stop us from sending those wacky brits men and materials to help fight their war. [/B][/QUOTE]
Not sent to us, Sold to us. You damn money grabbing Narns :D
Seriously though the US could have also sold stuff to Germany, but you didn't.
Even though you where late (again) you still get my thanks.
Just so our friends across the pond understand what was going on at the time:
President Roosevelt was very much [I]in favor[/I] of joining the war on the British/Allied side from the very beginning, as were a lot of Americans (it didn't take a degree in rocket technology for anyone on this side of the pond - or at least anyone here who truly understood what was going on - to realize that a Nazi-dominated Europe would [I]not[/I] be good for the U.S.). The main reason why the U.S. [U]didn't[/U] get involved right away was the fact that Congress was full of Isolationists who stupidly believed that what happened in Asia and Europe "won't affect us here at home" (even though U-boats were busy sinking ships just a few miles outside of practically every major East Coast city, and often well within view of anyone who lived on the coast or happened to be there at the time). Besides, even if there had been overwhelming support for direct U.S. invlovement in 1939, it still would've taken (and did take) two to three years for our factories and shipyards to reach full wartime production since we were still recovering from th Great Depression.
Amazing --> Just yesterday, an old Ford Tri-motor passed directly over the house. I couldn't believe it, to have a plane that rare pass directly overhead...it was moving very slow, like it was in a headwind. Actually looked very gracefull for as large and clunkly as those ships look on the ground. Had a [i]very[/i] unique sound with all three radial engines humming along.
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
Damn, you lucky sod.
I agree, all these planes look so graceful in the air given how they look on the ground. The Catalina especially looks like the ugly duckling on the ground but once in the air is beautiful.
Ah, one of my favorite subjects. WWII era aviation. I like so many planes from this time. I would say my favorites are the Me-109, Fw-190, and Spitfire. I really love a whole lot of them like the mosquito, P-51, the B-17, Me-262 jet, the B17, heck I like em all. I also like some of the more obscure german fighters like the heinkel He-219 night fighter. If i HAD to pick a favorite I would have to say the Me-109 unquestionably. It was a fighter that was developed well ahead of its time and before all its adversaries long before the war, served in the spanish civil war just before WWII and fought all the way to the very end while still remaining as one of the best fighter planes. The planes design is also IMO one of the most elegant ones ever.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by shadow boxer [/i]
[B]
Also... as you know, the 'Stang entered the war far too late to do much good, nor rack up impressive kill tallies.
Put it this way, if the 'Stang came on stream 2 years earlier, T-bolts would be hunting what was left of the german armour and blowing up fuel dumps and bridges...
[/B][/QUOTE]
Mustangs did come out fairly early in the war. The problem was the early A variants with the Allison engine were useless. They didn't become a worthy aircraft until later when the P-51B with the licensed Merlin engine was introduced. Nevertheless I disagree with your point it came too late to do much good. The introduction of the P-51D with its drastically longer range nearly assured air superiority for the US airforce daylight bombers in both the european and pacific theaters since they could escort the big B-17's and B-24's all the way to and from their target rather than having the snot blown out of them by Fw190's when flying unescorted suffering losses of 1/3 to 1/2 during raids. The air war over Europe could have taken a very bad turn for the allies where it not for the P-51D. Same goes for the Pacific where the distances were huge and they had to rely on the less agile P-38's to do long range escort duty. A plane which was far more versatile as a ground attack fighter.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by shadow boxer [/i]
[B]Whats the red one mate ? It's a spitty no doubt but what sort ? It's not a Griffon powered one, the engine exhausts give that away, and the wings are still beutiful elipses, but it looks long, lean and mean. Is it a recce bird or something ?
[/B][/QUOTE]
If I remember the designations correctly the first is a clipped wing variant of the Mk III which still had the 3 bladed propeller and clipped wings to improve manueverability at the expense if rate of climb. The second appears to be a Mk IX as the 4 bladed propeller and 20mm cannons are a giveaway. I'm not exactly sure what the last one with the red stripe is. The frame appears to be that of around a Mk IX and it uses the Merlin engine but it has a bubble canopy which is odd. I don't think the bubble canopies were ever used until later with the Griffon variants. I think some earlier recon versions used the bubble canopy though.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Vorlons in my Head [/i]
[B]If I remember the designations correctly the first is a clipped wing variant of the Mk III which still had the 3 bladed propeller and clipped wings to improve manueverability at the expense if rate of climb. [/B][/QUOTE]
Sorry, it's a mark V, not a III
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Vorlons in my Head [/i]
[B]The second appears to be a Mk IX as the 4 bladed propeller and 20mm cannons are a giveaway. [/B][/QUOTE]
Correct, it's a mark IX, though you can't actually go by the armament, as there where so many sub types all with different wing shapes, armaments, canopies that it can get very confusing.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Vorlons in my Head [/i]
[B]I'm not exactly sure what the last one with the red stripe is. The frame appears to be that of around a Mk IX and it uses the Merlin engine but it has a bubble canopy which is odd. I don't think the bubble canopies were ever used until later with the Griffon variants. I think some earlier recon versions used the bubble canopy though. [/B][/QUOTE]
Nope, it's a Mk.XVI fighter. Though the red stripe is a racing livery.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Ranger Brian [/i]
[B]Sorry, it's a mark V, not a III
Correct, it's a mark IX, though you can't actually go by the armament, as there where so many sub types all with different wing shapes, armaments, canopies that it can get very confusing.
Nope, it's a Mk.XVI fighter. Though the red stripe is a racing livery. [/B][/QUOTE]
You're right, I meant to say the first was a Mk V, I don't know why I said III. The III had 30 cal machine guns and no cannons which I see in the picture. The second its pretty easy to tell its most likely a IX given that it was one of the most common variants.
I just did a quick check and you're spot on on the Mk XVI. It was a somwhat rare variant based on the Mk IX frame but using the american version of the Merlin. many used the standard canopy but apparently a few did use the tear drop canopy which is why I didn't recognize it.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by shadow boxer [/i]
[B]precisely...
Throwing raw statistics at me isnt going to make much difference mate...:)
:D [/B][/QUOTE]
Yes yes, I know you live in your own world, but the conversation happens to involve THIS one. :D
The T-bolt was only in combat for about 9 more months then the B/C model Mustangs.
The thunderbolt was so not easy meat, the sucker could out roll anything in the sky, plus its ability to accelerate, climb, dive and DECELERATE, ment that a pilot could chose to run and come back around, or break and have the enemy overshoot him and pick him off.
SB you have to stop thinking of turning as the only tactic to use in a dogfight, its not, and the P-47 had attributes that allowed it to use other tactics to make it a damned deadly aircraft, even to P-51s :D
Secondly dont insult the P-38!!
both the japanese and the germans HATED the damned things because they would make diving attacks, run away, climb up to an altitude where they were untouchable and do it again, and again, and again.. It was called the "Fork tailed devil" for a reason :D
The highest scoring american aces of WWII flew P-38's
Its a beautiful aircraft, and its more manuverable then you would think, I know, Ive talked to people who still get to fly the thing :D there are two of em that fly within 50 miles of my location :D
Tyvar has a good point: If the "Jug" truly was as bad as some would have us believe, then it would've had the same combat record as the Brewster Buffalo (which [I]was[/I] a true POS, at least as far as the US and the RAF were concerned).
About the only flaw with the P-38 was that its Allison engines (which had better superchargers than those used with the engines in the early Mustangs built for the RAF) didn't perform well in the cold air over northern Europe; still, the Lightning's rate of climb was better than the Bf109 or the Fw-190 in most cases.
The Jug (P-47) might have been heavy and ugly but it was by no means easy prey. Like they say, with enough power even a brick can fly. The P-47 was very fast, had a pretty good turn speed, could dive very fast (obviously), and was tough as hell to shoot down. It was also a very stable aircract that could withstand hard turns wihout any airframe damage. One of the problems P-51's has was that when pilots started using g suits late in the war, they could turn much harder and they'd blow rivets of the wings and cause damage to them. The P-47 could easily at least match anything thrown against it.
The P-38 was a great success and probably only success at attempting to make a true twin engine fighter. The P-38 was very surprisingly agile for a twin engine fighter. The germans attempted a similar concept early in the war and with the Me-110 and made many other attempts later all which proved to be a disaster. The Me-110 was absolutely no match for any single engine fighter yet they still insisted on using it for escort well into the war. It served very well as a night fighter which was a role it was never intended to fill. Still, with equal pilots the P-38 would be at a disadvantage facing something like an Fw-190 or Me-109. One disturbing problem the P-38 suffered was it had a tendency to fall into an unrecoverable spin if turned too hard. A few US aces are believed to have been lost in P-38's when they flew into a spin. It truly wouldn't stand much of a chance againt a late model Fw-190 with a competent pilot.
Except that the P-38 had a higher altitude then any mark of FW-190?
And a decent enough climb rate to run for the heavens where it couldnt be touched?
The jugs abysmal reputation comes from the early B models failures the C models had higher performance via using water injection which gave them a higher war emergency power, combined with the new massive prop and pilots rising familiarity with their new aircraft (IE learning that they couldnt behave the same with it as the had with their spitfires) things got better
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Tyvar [/i]
[B]Except that the P-38 had a higher altitude then any mark of FW-190?
And a decent enough climb rate to run for the heavens where it couldnt be touched?
[/B][/QUOTE]
Nope, the late model Fw-190, particularly those which where redesignated TA-152 was quite possibly the fastest, most agile, and best climbing fighter of the war. Very few of these ever made it into combat though. Fw-190's switched to a V-12 inline turbocharged Jumo engines with a had a longer wingspan and much better climb rate and where capable of diving in to the highest flying B-17 formations. They used a round radiator in the nose which gave the impression they were radial engines but in fact were not. The Fw-190's biggest advantage was its armament. With four 20mm cannons in the wings, and two 15mm cannons in the nose you really wouldn't want to be cought in front of one of those. Some special interceptor variants could carry an additional two 20mm cannons in the wings. Most historians will agree the 190 was arguably the best fighter of the war and managed to retain superiority all throughout the war.
Yup. The Ta 152 outgunned and could outfly (with a capable pilot in the cockpit) any U.S. piston-engined fighter (and probably could've given the Lockheed P-80 Shooting Star trouble if the P-80 had entered combat; a few examples were tested in Italy in late '44 but were never sent against Luftwaffe aircraft).
IIRC, some night-fighter variants of the Ju-88 and later versions of the He-111 also used a version of the same Jumo engine (or a similar one).
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by An ex-Squid [/i]
[B]Yup. The Ta 152 outgunned and could outfly (with a capable pilot in the cockpit) any U.S. piston-engined fighter (and probably could've given the Lockheed P-80 Shooting Star trouble if the P-80 had entered combat; a few examples were tested in Italy in late '44 but were never sent against Luftwaffe aircraft).
IIRC, some night-fighter variants of the Ju-88 and later versions of the He-111 also used a version of the same Jumo engine (or a similar one). [/B][/QUOTE]
Actually the Ju 88 started off with a Jumo engine from the beginning all the way to the end. Its also commonly confused for a radial because it used the same round radiator behind the propeller. A few specialized variants such as the Ju 88 G series did use a BMW radial engine similar to that of the FW 190.
The He-111 actually used Jumo engines but it was an older underpowered version of them and it was during the pre war years and the Spanish civil war. By the beginning of WWII all He-111's had been converted to the more powerful Damlier Benz engine found in the Me 109 and they never saw much more modifications after that.
On an interesting note, Spain had aquired several He-111's. After the war there were obviously no parts replacements available for the DB engines so they retrofitted their 111's to use Merlin engines built under license by the Hispano Suiza. Kind of ironic that those planes where now flying thanks to the engine that powered the Spitfires which blew them to hell only a few years before :) As a matter of fact the only airworthy 111's still remaining are the modified Spanish versions of them. They are the ones you regularly see on most WWII films. You can tell its not the original because the engine cowling on the DB powered ones was smooth underneath with small radiator way back in the cowling. The Spanish versions have a huge bulging radiator similar to a Lancaster bomber just behind the propeller.
Comments
[B]Heh, that'll probably be the you-know-who filter cutting in. :D [/B][/QUOTE]
:D Possibly, but it doesn't explain why I could type Trojan the second time without any problems. (or even type it in this one without error)
Anyway, videos!
[url]http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/jlbiggs/takeoff.avi[/url]
[url]http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/jlbiggs/city_1.avi[/url]
[url]http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/jlbiggs/city_2.avi[/url]
[B]Eh... Thundebolts... yick
Very typical American approach... big, ugly, thirsty, brutish, flying tanks, gunned up into overkill territory and handles like a full laden Caddilac.
The reason why they dive so well is because they are bricks with wings. The two things that saved them from the Japs was the fact that they did fall in a controlled fashion faster than the Zeros could and they could take some punishment.
The Zero's could easily fly rings around the Thunderbolt and the only reason why P-47's werent falling out of the sky in flocks was that the Hayabusa's had pissy guns.
The Germans also liked to dine on Thunderbolts.
Woe betide you if you're a P-47 pilot at low altitude.
The other factor was the P47's teeth. You can't argue with 6 or 8 .50 cals. When a poor AAF pilot managed to get a zero in his gunsight he did have a very good chance of clipping the wings off his target.
I have no love for the P47. They should have been relegated to ground attack long before they did. Oh yeah... and if you pit P-51 against P-47 with equally skilled pilots, you P-47 is going down, a Mustang still had 6x.50 cals.
The Jug was simply a big mistake that the US spent the rest of the war compensating for. [/B][/QUOTE]
Then why did the highest scoring aces of the USAAF in the ETO fly T-bolts?
In fact the highest scoring fighter group in the ETO for the USAAF was the 56th Fighter Group, which destroyed 1006 German aircraft against a loss of 128 T-bolts
while the P-47 did suck at low altitude, it also could climb at over 3000 feet per minute sans ordance from the deck, meaning you werent going to catch it down low for too long. Also perportionatly we lost less thunderbolts then we lost mustangs.
In one infamous encounter P-47 driver Don Whinnem knocked down ace Glenn Eagleston (over 20 kills) in a incident of mistaken identity, Eagleston mistook the P-47 for a FW-190, and open fire and Whinnem retaliated outmanuvered the P-51 and sent it limping home, where it ulimtatly crashed before landing, fortunatly for Eagleston he was able to bail out. The P-47 despite being hit, continued on its mission :P
Then again T-bolts were known to shrug off multiple 20mm hits.
so 6 .50's might not cut it :P
some times brute force is a form of elegance :P
The T-bolt was a huge 'work around'.
They had the snot shot out of them regularly, but thankfully there were another 5000 recycled pots and pans between the shell and something important on the aircraft.
Dont forget the Germans spent alot of the air war over Europe heavily outnumbered, underfueled and often underpiloted. Kids who knew roughly what a rudder was were thrown into aircraft and sent up against well trained, fresh pilots in well maintained aircraft. A 15 year old kid with his droptank still attached, in a flat spin and totally out of control isn't a valid 'kill'... (no diss to the T-bolt pilot, but the point is made).
Lets also make sure everyone knows that you Yanks showed up late to the party. Where were you guys during the battle of Britain hmmm ?
Mopping up is something T-bolts would be good for... :P
Throwing raw statistics at me isnt going to make much difference mate...:)
I wonder how many T-bolt pilots came home with very empty magazines, after blurting all their ammo at the nippy little bastard krauts. It's good to be able to dive out of a dogfight and use your superior speed to get the hell out of there when you've run out of ammo, cos you cant keep the beggars in your gunsight long enough.
Also... as you know, the 'Stang entered the war far too late to do much good, nor rack up impressive kill tallies.
Put it this way, if the 'Stang came on stream 2 years earlier, T-bolts would be hunting what was left of the german armour and blowing up fuel dumps and bridges...
...in fact, I view them as the WW2 version of the Warthog in wrong role.
:D
[B]
Lets also make sure everyone knows that you Yanks showed up late to the party. Where were you guys during the battle of Britain hmmm ?
[/B][/QUOTE]
sipping martinis and dancing all nighters, reading about it in the papers ;)
come on now, which foreign policy would you prefer from us Americans, waiting until the last possible to minute to enter a war, or going around starting our own over oil?
seriously though, In the late 30's and early 40's the US tried to remain out of the affairs of the Europeans, we had an isolationist policy. That did not however stop us from sending those wacky brits men and materials to help fight their war. By the end of 1941 when the Japanese bombed pearl, you have to understand that the states were quite close to joining you anyway, it may have taken another 6 months but we would have been there.
yeah, you guys did contribute alot of material aid I grant you.. which was damned fine, still is
and yes... there needs to be a balance between 'Fortress America' and 'Empire America'. :)
[B]That did not however stop us from sending those wacky brits men and materials to help fight their war. [/B][/QUOTE]
Not sent to us, Sold to us. You damn money grabbing Narns :D
Seriously though the US could have also sold stuff to Germany, but you didn't.
Even though you where late (again) you still get my thanks.
we "could" have sold stuff to germany, but we did have a vested interest in seeing England remain intact, so they werent going to do that.
President Roosevelt was very much [I]in favor[/I] of joining the war on the British/Allied side from the very beginning, as were a lot of Americans (it didn't take a degree in rocket technology for anyone on this side of the pond - or at least anyone here who truly understood what was going on - to realize that a Nazi-dominated Europe would [I]not[/I] be good for the U.S.). The main reason why the U.S. [U]didn't[/U] get involved right away was the fact that Congress was full of Isolationists who stupidly believed that what happened in Asia and Europe "won't affect us here at home" (even though U-boats were busy sinking ships just a few miles outside of practically every major East Coast city, and often well within view of anyone who lived on the coast or happened to be there at the time). Besides, even if there had been overwhelming support for direct U.S. invlovement in 1939, it still would've taken (and did take) two to three years for our factories and shipyards to reach full wartime production since we were still recovering from th Great Depression.
[url]http://www.airventuremuseum.org/collection/aircraft/Ford%20Tri-Motor.asp[/url]
Jake
I agree, all these planes look so graceful in the air given how they look on the ground. The Catalina especially looks like the ugly duckling on the ground but once in the air is beautiful.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by shadow boxer [/i]
[B]
Also... as you know, the 'Stang entered the war far too late to do much good, nor rack up impressive kill tallies.
Put it this way, if the 'Stang came on stream 2 years earlier, T-bolts would be hunting what was left of the german armour and blowing up fuel dumps and bridges...
[/B][/QUOTE]
Mustangs did come out fairly early in the war. The problem was the early A variants with the Allison engine were useless. They didn't become a worthy aircraft until later when the P-51B with the licensed Merlin engine was introduced. Nevertheless I disagree with your point it came too late to do much good. The introduction of the P-51D with its drastically longer range nearly assured air superiority for the US airforce daylight bombers in both the european and pacific theaters since they could escort the big B-17's and B-24's all the way to and from their target rather than having the snot blown out of them by Fw190's when flying unescorted suffering losses of 1/3 to 1/2 during raids. The air war over Europe could have taken a very bad turn for the allies where it not for the P-51D. Same goes for the Pacific where the distances were huge and they had to rely on the less agile P-38's to do long range escort duty. A plane which was far more versatile as a ground attack fighter.
[B]Whats the red one mate ? It's a spitty no doubt but what sort ? It's not a Griffon powered one, the engine exhausts give that away, and the wings are still beutiful elipses, but it looks long, lean and mean. Is it a recce bird or something ?
[/B][/QUOTE]
If I remember the designations correctly the first is a clipped wing variant of the Mk III which still had the 3 bladed propeller and clipped wings to improve manueverability at the expense if rate of climb. The second appears to be a Mk IX as the 4 bladed propeller and 20mm cannons are a giveaway. I'm not exactly sure what the last one with the red stripe is. The frame appears to be that of around a Mk IX and it uses the Merlin engine but it has a bubble canopy which is odd. I don't think the bubble canopies were ever used until later with the Griffon variants. I think some earlier recon versions used the bubble canopy though.
[B]If I remember the designations correctly the first is a clipped wing variant of the Mk III which still had the 3 bladed propeller and clipped wings to improve manueverability at the expense if rate of climb. [/B][/QUOTE]
Sorry, it's a mark V, not a III
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Vorlons in my Head [/i]
[B]The second appears to be a Mk IX as the 4 bladed propeller and 20mm cannons are a giveaway. [/B][/QUOTE]
Correct, it's a mark IX, though you can't actually go by the armament, as there where so many sub types all with different wing shapes, armaments, canopies that it can get very confusing.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Vorlons in my Head [/i]
[B]I'm not exactly sure what the last one with the red stripe is. The frame appears to be that of around a Mk IX and it uses the Merlin engine but it has a bubble canopy which is odd. I don't think the bubble canopies were ever used until later with the Griffon variants. I think some earlier recon versions used the bubble canopy though. [/B][/QUOTE]
Nope, it's a Mk.XVI fighter. Though the red stripe is a racing livery.
[B]Sorry, it's a mark V, not a III
Correct, it's a mark IX, though you can't actually go by the armament, as there where so many sub types all with different wing shapes, armaments, canopies that it can get very confusing.
Nope, it's a Mk.XVI fighter. Though the red stripe is a racing livery. [/B][/QUOTE]
You're right, I meant to say the first was a Mk V, I don't know why I said III. The III had 30 cal machine guns and no cannons which I see in the picture. The second its pretty easy to tell its most likely a IX given that it was one of the most common variants.
I just did a quick check and you're spot on on the Mk XVI. It was a somwhat rare variant based on the Mk IX frame but using the american version of the Merlin. many used the standard canopy but apparently a few did use the tear drop canopy which is why I didn't recognize it.
[B]precisely...
Throwing raw statistics at me isnt going to make much difference mate...:)
:D [/B][/QUOTE]
Yes yes, I know you live in your own world, but the conversation happens to involve THIS one. :D
The T-bolt was only in combat for about 9 more months then the B/C model Mustangs.
The thunderbolt was so not easy meat, the sucker could out roll anything in the sky, plus its ability to accelerate, climb, dive and DECELERATE, ment that a pilot could chose to run and come back around, or break and have the enemy overshoot him and pick him off.
SB you have to stop thinking of turning as the only tactic to use in a dogfight, its not, and the P-47 had attributes that allowed it to use other tactics to make it a damned deadly aircraft, even to P-51s :D
Secondly dont insult the P-38!!
both the japanese and the germans HATED the damned things because they would make diving attacks, run away, climb up to an altitude where they were untouchable and do it again, and again, and again.. It was called the "Fork tailed devil" for a reason :D
The highest scoring american aces of WWII flew P-38's
Its a beautiful aircraft, and its more manuverable then you would think, I know, Ive talked to people who still get to fly the thing :D there are two of em that fly within 50 miles of my location :D
About the only flaw with the P-38 was that its Allison engines (which had better superchargers than those used with the engines in the early Mustangs built for the RAF) didn't perform well in the cold air over northern Europe; still, the Lightning's rate of climb was better than the Bf109 or the Fw-190 in most cases.
And to prove the Fins crazy, they were the ONLY operator of the Brewster Buffalo who actually liked the damned thing... go figure.
Although the Brewster 339D's of the Dutch East Indies air corps did put up a valiant fight.
The P-38 was a great success and probably only success at attempting to make a true twin engine fighter. The P-38 was very surprisingly agile for a twin engine fighter. The germans attempted a similar concept early in the war and with the Me-110 and made many other attempts later all which proved to be a disaster. The Me-110 was absolutely no match for any single engine fighter yet they still insisted on using it for escort well into the war. It served very well as a night fighter which was a role it was never intended to fill. Still, with equal pilots the P-38 would be at a disadvantage facing something like an Fw-190 or Me-109. One disturbing problem the P-38 suffered was it had a tendency to fall into an unrecoverable spin if turned too hard. A few US aces are believed to have been lost in P-38's when they flew into a spin. It truly wouldn't stand much of a chance againt a late model Fw-190 with a competent pilot.
And a decent enough climb rate to run for the heavens where it couldnt be touched?
The jugs abysmal reputation comes from the early B models failures the C models had higher performance via using water injection which gave them a higher war emergency power, combined with the new massive prop and pilots rising familiarity with their new aircraft (IE learning that they couldnt behave the same with it as the had with their spitfires) things got better
[B]Except that the P-38 had a higher altitude then any mark of FW-190?
And a decent enough climb rate to run for the heavens where it couldnt be touched?
[/B][/QUOTE]
Nope, the late model Fw-190, particularly those which where redesignated TA-152 was quite possibly the fastest, most agile, and best climbing fighter of the war. Very few of these ever made it into combat though. Fw-190's switched to a V-12 inline turbocharged Jumo engines with a had a longer wingspan and much better climb rate and where capable of diving in to the highest flying B-17 formations. They used a round radiator in the nose which gave the impression they were radial engines but in fact were not. The Fw-190's biggest advantage was its armament. With four 20mm cannons in the wings, and two 15mm cannons in the nose you really wouldn't want to be cought in front of one of those. Some special interceptor variants could carry an additional two 20mm cannons in the wings. Most historians will agree the 190 was arguably the best fighter of the war and managed to retain superiority all throughout the war.
[url]http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/ta152.html[/url]
IIRC, some night-fighter variants of the Ju-88 and later versions of the He-111 also used a version of the same Jumo engine (or a similar one).
[B]Yup. The Ta 152 outgunned and could outfly (with a capable pilot in the cockpit) any U.S. piston-engined fighter (and probably could've given the Lockheed P-80 Shooting Star trouble if the P-80 had entered combat; a few examples were tested in Italy in late '44 but were never sent against Luftwaffe aircraft).
IIRC, some night-fighter variants of the Ju-88 and later versions of the He-111 also used a version of the same Jumo engine (or a similar one). [/B][/QUOTE]
Actually the Ju 88 started off with a Jumo engine from the beginning all the way to the end. Its also commonly confused for a radial because it used the same round radiator behind the propeller. A few specialized variants such as the Ju 88 G series did use a BMW radial engine similar to that of the FW 190.
The He-111 actually used Jumo engines but it was an older underpowered version of them and it was during the pre war years and the Spanish civil war. By the beginning of WWII all He-111's had been converted to the more powerful Damlier Benz engine found in the Me 109 and they never saw much more modifications after that.
On an interesting note, Spain had aquired several He-111's. After the war there were obviously no parts replacements available for the DB engines so they retrofitted their 111's to use Merlin engines built under license by the Hispano Suiza. Kind of ironic that those planes where now flying thanks to the engine that powered the Spitfires which blew them to hell only a few years before :) As a matter of fact the only airworthy 111's still remaining are the modified Spanish versions of them. They are the ones you regularly see on most WWII films. You can tell its not the original because the engine cowling on the DB powered ones was smooth underneath with small radiator way back in the cowling. The Spanish versions have a huge bulging radiator similar to a Lancaster bomber just behind the propeller.