Best Fighter Plane Of The War?

Wrong again Adam. I am an American. We talk direct. We don't pull punches but we aren't angry. You didn't pull punches so why would I assume you were angry? But if it makes you happy to think I am angry, be my guest.

That's a switch.

I believe the subject matter was why did they choose to keep the Jug and you implied it was emotional attachment rather than beneficial features, using survivability as one. I believe you described survivability as a “prosaic interest” as though these guys were not “sophisticated” (that’s the opposite of prosaic) enough to appreciate a plane like the P-51 that was far less survivable.

Well most of his kills came in a Mustang but I believe he first became an ace in a Jug. The subject matter was the Jug, not the Mustang.

Never said you did. Is that a straw man argument?

This is the inference Spitzophrenics such as yourself commonly make. If the Jug can shoot down the Germans by constantly jumping and climbing, then that’s what happened whether or not you Spitfire fans can possibly come to terms with it. If the Spitfire could exploit those tactics, then they would have been foolish to dogfight. That’s my point. Better to be out of the range of you enemy with him in range of you and not able to escape. The plane that has altitude owns the fight. You should know that.

Implying that he may have been delusional thinking he had outclimbed a Spitfire in a mock dogfight is a little more than off hand conjecture. It is a wee bit condescending.

The Zeros did good against P-40s and F4Fs in 1941. After that they began to see very little victory. Go read up on Pappy Boyington. Adam, you claim to be a pilot. Do you not realize that turning radius is canceled by altitude? Something coming down on you does not need to turn a fraction of your turn radius. Tight turning radii over a Jug were useless with the tactics the Jug employed. Have you ever even read how a Jug was used in a fighter dominance role? You seem to be ignorant of its capabilities.

The Lightening was the other plane that could survive compressibility. It too was a phenomenal diver. Twins gave it an exceptional rate of climb. I have never heard of a dogfight where Zeros were overwhelming. Like I said the Zero was not a feared fighter unless you were in a SBD without fighter cover.

Don’t see how you can make that claim so definitively. The same could have been said about Gabby.

I can’t either. But how does any of this add substance to the rhetoric of your friend’s post that the Jug was overblown, a dissertation you claimed you wished you had written? That was the whole subject of this little debate. Did you forget?

 

(redcoat @ Nov 17 2005, 12:12 PM) [post=41694](jimbotosome @ Nov 17 2005, 01:33 AM) [post=41647]You too are right redcoat. I bet the Americans never even shot down a single plane in the war. They just flew around in circles hoping their heroes in the RAF would come and shoot down the Germans on their tails. The exaggerations had to be at least 100:1. I would have never known American pilots were such liars and RAF pilots speak only truth as the oracles of God unless I had seen that opinion posted here on a British forum. There is no insecure jealousy of the RAF today nor in that day. These reports are all true.
[/b]
Please point out where I have ever stated that RAF claims were more accurate than those of the USAAF
images/smilies/default/mad.gif
[/b]Your implication that the Americans exaggerated their kills (using the Flying Tigers as a case in point) and locking shields with Adam that had just made the claim explicitly is hardly "a coincidental post". Its really not a challenge to connect those dots. BTW: Go back on this thread and look at your manifold posts. You will find many claims to the Jug pilots (which you made a point out of insisting were all American as if a Brit wouldn't be seen dead in one) "exaggerating kills" of everything from fighters to tanks.

 

Okay Gentlemen, there has been complaints about the tone of certain postings. please keep to the guidelines and moderate your language!

 

Jimbo - I know exactly how the Jug was used in the fighter dominance role (or should we be saying air superiority?). To be more accurate, I should say I know exactly what the favoured tactics were - dive and climb, slashing attacks. However, you make the cardinal error of assuming the enemy were always obliging enough to let the tactics that best suited the Jug to be employed against them, or that the Jug was always in the advantageous position of being high on its perch waiting to plummet down on the enemy below.

American escort pilots were actively encouraged to chase their targets down to the deck and, having despatched them, to go hunting for targets of opportunity to strafe. At that height, the Jug's phenomenal dive capabilities would have been useless. Far more useful in that situation is the ability to turn and climb. And whilst I fully acknowledge the Jug was no slouch, two facts are pertinent: its zoom climb was far better than its sustained climb (at least in its earlier versions - and the zoom climb is dependent on the kinetic energy stored from the preceding dive, which is zero if flying parallel to the deck), and its performance only started to increase at high altitude (because of the characteristics of its turbo-supercharger). Most of your assessment of the P-47s performance seems based on the later marques, such as the "Lightweight" P-47M, yet that variant didn't enter service with the 56th until the start of 1945 and was beset by technical malfunctions for the next three months, reducing serviceability to such a point that, at one stage, one squadron temporarily started re-equipment with Mustangs. You also have not clocked to the fact that, unlike the Spitfire or Mustang, dive-slash-and zoom tactics were the only ones available to the Jug. Indeed, they are always the resort of less manouverable fighters. The Me109s used the same tactics against Hurricanes and Spitfires in 1940, but the RAF still managed to shoot a large number of them down!

The Spitfire was the better fighter simply because it could employ the best tactics against a particular enemy. As it was, broadly speaking, on a par with the opposition in most performance respects, but enjoyed a most particular advantage in manouverability over most else in the sky, it was natural that its forte was the turning fight. Her pilots were simply exploiting the biggest advantage the Spitfire had over the opposition. But in the Pacific, as I mentioned in an earlier post, the Seafire LIII (equivalent to a Spitfire IX) was outmanouvered by the Zero and consequently employed dive and zoom attacks because now its principal advantage was in the dive and climb.....(your continued dismissal of the Zero as being worrisome only if you happened to be flying an unescorted SBD is, I think, symptomatic of your misundertanding of certain realities. The Zero remained a very real threat until the Hellcat started to gain the ascendancy from late 1943 -it flew its first offensive operation in August, 1943- again using dive & zoom tactics. Quote from website devoted to Hellcat: "Especially with the delays in the F4U program, the US Navy needed a superior carrier-based fighter in 1942-43. The Hellcat filled the bill. On average, it flew 55 MPH faster than the Zero; at about 20,000 feet it was 70 MPH faster. At altitudes in excess of 10,000 feet, it had a comparable rate of climb. At all altitudes, due to its heavier weight and greater power, it could out-dive the A6M. This was generally true of American fighters; in a tough spot, the pilots could nose over, firewall the throttle, and zoom down.")

One other thing: the Spitfire IXe carried two .5s in addition to two 20mm cannon. Not quite as powerful as the eight .5s on the P-47, I agree. But quite a punch nonetheless.....

Dive and Zoom attacks do reduce your exposure to the enemy, I quite agree. They are "safer" for the pilots employing them than "mixing-it-up" in a free-for-all. But you should consider two things: they work only as long as you can hold the initiative, and they also reduce the firing time available to you on each such attack because of the high speeds involved. Also, aerial combat has a habit of starting out high up and gradually coming down lower as fighters manouvere to seek advantage. The Mig 15s in Korea used to fly around in circles at over 50,000 feet, supposedly out of reach of the USAF F-86 Sabres, upon whom they would make repeated diving attacks before zooming back up into the sanctuary of the circle of jets at 50,000 feet. Interesting, therefore, that the F-86 enjoyed such an advantageous kill to loss ratio over the Migs. Interesting, but not mysterious: it was simply the fight starting high and getting progressively lower....

Flying a Jug, a superb air to air fighter under the right conditions and if able to use the tactics best suited to it, did not make that basic truism of air combat invalid. It was RAF Spitfire ace Johnnie Johnson who once complimented Don Blakeslee, a former Spitfire pilot with the Eagle Squadrons, on the diving capability of his new mount, only to draw the retort: "It ought to; it certainly won't climb!" OK, he was referring to the earlier version without the paddle blade props (which increased climb rate at the expense of level speed) or water injection (which increased the time emergency power was available), but I still catergorically refute that even these later Jugs were in the same climbing league as the contemporary Spitfire XIV. One has only to look at the book figures...

When the Jug first started flying operations with the 56th and 78th Fighter groups in April, 1943, its shortcomings quickly revealed themselves. It was easily out-turned by the German single seaters (hardly surprising given the high wing loading conferred by its 300 sq.ft wing area), although its sparkling rate of roll compensated for this to some degree. Even so, at low and medium altitudes it was easily outclimbed by them. Robert Johnson knew the Jug's shortcomings, and used the superb roll capability of the Jug to negate the better turning of the German fighters. The direct RAF contemporary of the P-47B, C & D models was the Spitfire IX which, though inferior to the Jug in rate of roll, scored over it in every other area. The later P-47M and N made very little contribution to the war, unlike its direct RAF contemporary, the Spitfire XIV...

Jimbo, you pursue your defence of the P-47 with an evangelist's fervour. So be it. You may be a "born-again" Thunderbolt man, but I will remain loyal to my original faith and stay an orthodox Spitfire man until someone can convince me there really is a reason to convert. I am aware of the Spitfire's weaknessess - its short range, relatively slow rate of roll, heavy ailerons at high speed (largely cured from 1941 by the fitting of metal, as opposed to fabric covered surfaces), but as a fighting machine it remained competitive with the very best from the first day of the war until the last. The same can not be said of many other aircraft, and certainly not the Jug....

P.S. I am a pilot, Jimbo - albiet only a humble civilian one who flies for pleasure, not for a living. Nonetheless, I have been flying for over twenty years - a wide range of light aircraft ranging from vintage aerobatic biplanes to spamcans and twins. I also have logged time in a T-6 Harvard (Texan to you). What do you fly?

P.P.S. I am adding here some quotes I found on other web forums regarding P-47/Spitfire:

"I read once that a P47M was modified to reach 500 MPH!!!! and reached a hieght of 46,500' and was capable of more!!! I understand that both these figures was with full internal fuel and ammo(or at least proper ballast).Are both these figures correct?"

"As for the P47, a number of these were stripped down slightly, having their guns reduced to 6 or even 4 (although I believe the fuel tankage remained unchanged) to allow them to catch and destroy V-1 Flying Bombs, still 500mph does seem extremely fast for level flight. I'll check through my books at home later to see if I can find any references."

"Top speed of the V1 was 350 MPH.... Even Spitfires brought them down... Not sure they would mod a P47 just for this..."

"They did ... P47M"

"Even Spitfires brought them down". Not quite sure what you mean by this comment?
The Germans could alternate the speed on the V-1,some flew at 350mph.The top speed was about 400mph.
The P-47M never fired its gun in anger, at any V-1 Buzz-Bombs.The launch sights were over run before the P-47M came in to service.
Btw,the prototype was up and flying, before the V-1 were launch against London"

"The launch sites may have been over-run, but versions of the He111H series were adapted to carry the V-1. You're right though, the P-47M was never actually needed in it's planned role."

"I think the reference to "Even Spitfires could catch them" was possibly influenced by the fact most people don't actually realise the huge difference in performance between the Merlin and Griffin engined Spitfires. The Griffins could quite easily catch a V-1, a Spitfire MkI, probably only in a dive!"


"I think it`s a myth, that the P-47 was modified to combat the Doodlebug.When the Raf caught on with the He111 tactic, I be inclined to think the mossie would be the suitable aircraft to tackle the He111, That being, it can loiter over the north sea for a longer period.
Yes, When everybody thinks of the Spitfire, they think of the B,O,B.From 39 to 45, the Spitfire was comparable to any other fighter in the sky...And yes the Butcher bird did come as a nasty shock."

"The FW190 was a shock to the Merlin engined MkVs, the later Griffin engined planes like the MkXIV ran rings around the FW190 A series. "

"The P47M was modified to enable it to catch V-1s, it was created as a precaution. As I understand it there was a not entirely unreasonable fear that the Germans would use V-1s to attack US air bases destroying planes and killing crews on the ground with no loss to their own. The Americans wanted their own units to be capable of catching the V-1s without having to rely on the RAF for protection. As it was this never happened and the P47M entered service a while after the worst of the V-1 menace had passed."

 

(jimbotosome @ Nov 18 2005, 12:22 AM) [post=41726]Your implication that the Americans exaggerated their kills (using the Flying Tigers as a case in point) and locking shields with Adam that had just made the claim explicitly is hardly "a coincidental post". Its really not a challenge to connect those dots.[/b]
Firstly the post on the Flying Tigers I posted was by an American poster quoting an American author.

Secondly if you had actually read both my posts carefully you would have realised that I was actually coming to the defence of the Flying Tigers.

In the first post while it was admitted that the Flying Tigers did overclaim, it also states that the overclaiming was nowhere near as bad as the poster adamcotton claimed, and that even if you look at the revised figures, the Flying Tigers did do an amazing job. It also explained there were understandable reasons for the overclaiming, which was the point of my second post, to explain why overclaiming was a feature for every airforce in WW2

 

Standard response to questions regarding US built carrier based fighters in action against adversaries other than the Japanese in WWII:

For most, the names Wildcat, Hellcat and Corsair conjure visions of the Pacific Theater, the big carrier battles – Coral Sea, Midway, Eastern Solomons, Santa Cruz, and Philippine Sea; tropical island battles – Guadalcanal and the long march up the Solomons; and desperate battles against the Kamikazes off Okinawa and the coast of Japan. These were the fighter planes of the US Navy and Marine Corps through their battles and campaigns of the Pacific. There is, however, another side to their story. Wildcats, Hellcats, and Corsairs were also in the European, African and the Mediterranean theaters.

Employment of US designed and built carrier fighters by both the Americans and the British in the European and African Theaters pertains to three aircraft types. The navies of both countries fought using the F4F (or, its later variant, the FM-2) and the F6F. The Royal Navy’s Fleet Air Arm also employed the F4U in the European waters (operating off carriers some eight months before the Americans made a practice of it), but the US Navy did not, sending all their F4U's to the Pacific. There were numerous aerial clashes between the British and American US built carrier fighters and their German, Italian, and Vichy opponents, but very few fighter-to-fighter duels, especially against the Luftwaffe.

US Navy F4F aerial actions, and where most fighter-to-fighter duels took place, were concentrated in Operation Torch against Vichy aircraft. There were some 109 Wildcats assigned to four carriers: VF-41 (Lieut. Comdr. CT Booth, USN) and VF-9 (Lieut. Comdr. JA Raby, USN), USS Ranger; VGF-27 (Lieut. Comdr. TK Wright, USN), VGF-28 (Lieut. Comdr. JI Bandy, USN), and VGS-30 (Lieut. Comdr. MP Bagdanovitch, USN – a scouting squadron that, curiously, flew F4Fs), USS Suwannee; VGF-26 (Lieut. Comdr. WE Ellis, USN), USS Sangamon; and VGF-29 (Lieut. Comdr. JT Blackburn, USN, later of VF-17 fame), USS Santee.

On 8 November, over Cazes, VF-41 brought down 13 Vichy aircraft: four Dewoitine D.520's, eight Hawk 75A's (export version of the Curtis P-36), and one Douglas DB-7. Lieut.(j.g.) Shields accounted for a D.520, two 75A's (plus one damaged) and the DB- 7; Lieut. August brought down three of the 75A's; and the CO, Booth, also scored a 75A. It wasn't all VF-41's way however, of 18 Wildcats engaged, six were lost, mostly to ground fire, including Shields and August. A total of five pilots were captured and one recovered from off shore. Chuck August was later, while flying an F6F in VF-44, shot down again over Formosa in January 1945 and taken prisoner by the Japanese, thus becoming the only USN pilot to be twice a POW in World War II.

Near Port Lyautey, VF-9’s skipper, Raby, knocked down a Potez 63.VGF-26 pilots found themselves later that morning also over Port Lyautey, where they ran up against several twin engine bombers and five fighters. They accounted for one D.520 and three Martin 167's with no losses. VGF-27 pilots, unfortunately, intercepted and shot down a RAF Hudson, mistakenly identified as Vichy. Only one member of the four man crew survived.

On 9 November, VF-9 went into action again and claimed five 75A's, including one for Raby (plus one probable) though French records only recorded four losses, at a cost of one F4F (pilot captured). VF-41 claimed the shoot down an 'intruder' over the invasion beaches as darkness fell, but this may have been a photo-recon Spitfire that turned up missing that night. French and German records did not indicate any aircraft in the area at the time.

10 November found a last contact with VF-29’s Ens. Jacques shooting down what he reported was a Bloch 174, but was later confirmed as a Potez 63, near Safi.

Overall, US F4F losses were fairly heavy, over 20%. There were 11 combat related losses (5 losses in aerial combat) and 14 operational losses. US pilots claimed 22 victories, not including the Hudson and the probable Spitfire. The French reported losing 25 aircraft in combat.

On 4 October 1943, Ranger participated in Operation Leader, a strike on the harbor at Bodø in Norway. During this action VF-4 (Lieut. Comdr. CL Moore, USN), the redesignated VF-41, pilots Lieut. (j.g.)'s Mayhew and Laird together shot down a Ju-88 and Laird followed up with an He-115 on his own. With five later victories over Japanese opponents, Laird was the only confirmed USN ace with German and Japanese Theater victories. This was the last USN F4F aerial action in the African-Atlantic-European theaters.

After the F4F came the F6F as the mainstay of USN carrier fighter operations. For the USN. the only F6F actions over Europe transpired during the invasion of southern France in August 1944. USS Tulagi with VOF-1 (Lieut. Comdr. WF Bringle, USN) and USS Kasaan Bay embarking VF-74 (Lieut. Comdr. HB Bass, USN), both squadrons, operating F6F-5s, provided coverage for the landings. VF-74 also operated a 7-plane F6F-3N night fighter detachment from Ajaccio on the island of Corsica. On the day of the invasion, 15 August, VF-74 flew 60 sorties, VOF-1, 40 sorties, all ground support missions.

On the morning of 19 August, the first German aircraft, three He-111's, were spotted by a four-plane division of VOF-1 pilots. The Americans were too short on fuel and could not attack. Two of the Americans were forced to land on HMS Emperor due to their fuel state. Later that day, two He-111's were spotted by another VOF-1 division and were promptly shot down, this occurring near the village of Vienne. Lieut. Poucel and Ens. Wood teamed up to bring down one and Ens. Robinson brought down the second. Soon thereafter, in the same vicinity, a third He-111 was shot down by Ens. Wood. That same morning, a division of VF-74 pilots led by Lieut. Comdr. Bass brought down an Ju-88 and in the afternoon another division attacked a Do-217 with split credits to going to Lieut. (j.g.) Castanedo and Ens. Hullard.

On 21 August, pilots from VOF-1 shot down three Ju-52 transports north of Marseille. Two were credited to Lieut. (j.g.) Olszewski; one went to Ens. Yenter. Operating for two weeks in support of the invasion, these two squadrons were credited with destroying 825 trucks and vehicles, damaging 334 more and destroying or otherwise immobilizing 84 locomotives. German aircraft shot down: VOF-1: 6, VF-74: 2.

Although the two navy squadrons lost some 17 aircraft, combined, all were to ground fire or operational accidents. None were shot down by German aircraft. Among the 7 pilots lost (2 fromVOF-1 and 5 from VF-74) was the CO of VF-74, Lieut. Comdr. H. Brinkley Bass, awarded 2 Navy Crosses from early actions, killed by antiaircraft fire while strafing near Chamelet on 20 August.

The Royal Navy was to employ the F4F in combat long before the US Navy. FAA Marlets (export F4F's, model G-36A's, originally earmarked for France but transferred to the Royal Navy after the collapse of France) were active almost a year before Pearl Harbor. First air-to-air victory was on 25 December 1940; flying out of Hatson, Lieut. Carter and Sub-Lieut. Parke from 804 Squadron (Lieut. Comdr. BHM Kendall, RN, commanding) intercepted a Ju-88 over Scapa Flow and shot it down near Loch Skail.

Later land based victories were scored in the Mediterranean Theater. On 28 September 1941, Sub-Lieut. Walsh, 805 Squadron (Lieut. Comdr. AF Black, RN), operating out of Sidi Haneish shot down an Italian Fiat G-50. Walsh and Sub-Lieut. Routley claimed a probable victory over a Savoia-Marchetti SM.79 on 11 November. By 28 December, 805 was operating out of Tobruk. On that day Sub-Lieut. Griffin attacked four SM.79s that were conducting a torpedo attack. He forced two of them to jettison their payloads and evade, shot down a third and was, in turn, shot down by the gunner of the fourth. 805 Squadron later accounted for a Ju-88 in February 1942 and two more SM.79s in July.

At sea, 802 Squadron (Lieut. Comdr. JM Wintour, RN), specialized in FW-200's. Operating off HMS Audacity escorting Convoy OG-74, the first encounter was early on 21 September 1941, when one was brought down under the combined attack of Sub-Lieut.'s Patterson and Fletcher. Later, in the early afternoon, a Ju-88 was driven off with damage. Shortly thereafter another section chased down a radar contact only to find the Lisbon to Azores Boeing 314 Clipper; they let it go. On 8 November, now escorting Convoy OG-76, Lieut. Comdr. Wintour and Sub-Lieut. Hutchinson attacked and shot down another 200, but, in the process, Wintour was killed by return fire. Later that day, Sub-Lieut. Brown shot down a second FW-200 in a head-on pass and Sub-Lieut. Lamb drove off a third.

At sea again with still another convoy, HG-76, 802 was now commanded by Lieut. DCEF Gibson, DSC, RN. On 14 December, Sub-Lieut. Fletcher was shot down and killed strafing surfaced U-131. His action, however, enabled three escorts to close range and take the submarine under fire until her crew was forced to abandon ship. On 19 December, in another head-on pass, Brown brought down his second FW-200, Lieut. Comdr. Sleigh, using Brown’s proven head-on method, shot down another, and Lamb, again, drove off a third with damage. Audacity was torpedoed by U-751 on 21 December and sank with heavy losses, including many pilots.

During the British invasion of Madagascar, Martlets from 881 Squadron (Lieut. Comdr. JC Cockburn, RN) off HMS Illustrious accounted for two French Potez 63's (one shared between Lieut. Waller and Sub-Lieut. Bird) and three Morane 406C's (one to Lieut. Tompkins, one shared between Waller and Sub-Lieut. Lyon, and one shared between Waller and Tompkins) between 5 and 7 May 1942 with the loss of one of their own. On 7 August 1942 Sub-Lieuts. Scott and Ballard, from 888 Squadron (Capt. FDG Bird, RM) off HMS Formidable splashed a Kawanishi H6K 'Mavis' flying boat in the Bay of Bengal.

May was also a busy month the Mediterranean. On the 12th, during Operation Pedestal, six Martlets from 806 Squadron (Lieut. Comdr. JN Garnett, RN) on HMS Furious were part of a force rounded out with 30 Sea Hurricanes and 18 Fulmars which took on a mixed force of German and Italian attackers, numbering about 100, going after a Malta bound convoy. The Grummans pilots accounted for two SM.79s, one Ju-88 and one Reggianne Re-2000. One Martlet was lost.

In November 1942 came Operation Torch. 888 Squadron and 893 Squadron (Lieut. RG French, RNVR) with a total of 24 F4F's were deployed on Formidable. Illustrious carried 882 Squadron (Lieut. ILF Lowe, DSC, RN) with 18 F4F's.

On 6 November, Lieut. Jeram, 888 Squadron, shot down a Bloch 174. On 9 November, Jeram shared another Ju-88 with Sub-Lieut Astin; meanwhile, a division of 882 Squadron brought down a He-111 and drove off, with damage, a Ju-88. With Jeram's victories, 888 Squadron was the only Allied squadron able to claim kills on German, Italian, Japanese, and Vichy opponents.

Unfortunately, on the 11th, a four-plane division from 893 made the same identification error as did VGF-27 on the 9th and shot down another RAF Hudson that they mis-identified as an Italian SM.84.

In July 1943, 881 Squadron (Lieut. Comdr. RA Bird, RN) and 890 Squadron (Lieut. Comdr. JW Sleigh, DSC, RN), while operating off Furious, shot down 3 Blohm and Voss BV-138 seaplanes.

September 9th during Operation Avalanche saw 888 off Formidable score again, bringing down a Cantieri Z.506B float-plane. 842 Squadron (Lieut. Comdr. LR Tivy, RN), HMS Fencer, scored an FW-200, splashed by Sub-Lieut. Fleishman-Allen, on 1 December to round out 1943.

1944 saw FAA F4F scores at about the same rate. On 12 February Convoy OS-67/KMS-41, protected by 881 Squadron (Lieut. Comdr. DRB Cosh, RCNVR) and 896 Squadron (Lieut. Comdr. LA Hordern, DSC, RNVR), HMS Pursuer, was attacked by seven He-177s from II.KG-40 carrying the Henshel Hs-293 guided missile. Defending F4Fs shot down an He-177, a snooping FW-200 and drove off the remaining He-177s.

Lieuts. Dimes and Erickson, 811 Squadron (Lieut. Comdr. EB Morgan, RANVR), HMS Biter, shot down a Ju-290 on 16 February.

Providing escort for Convoy JW-58 were 819 Squadron (Lieut. OAG Oxley, RN), HMS Activity, and 846 Squadron (Lieut. Comdr. RD Head, DSC, RN), HMS Tracker. 819’s Lieut. Large and Sub-Lieut Yeo shared a Ju-88 on 30 March and between 31 March and 4 April the two squadrons together brought down three BV-138's and three FW-200's with no losses.

On 3 April some 40 Martlets from Pursuer and Searcher flew flak suppression for Operation Tungsten, the raid on the Tirpitz. These included: from Pursuer, 881 Squadron and 896 Squadron and from Searcher, 882 Squadron (Lieut. Comdr. EA Shaw, RN) and 898 Squadron (Lieut. Comdr. GR Henderson, DSC, RNVR).

While escorting Convoy RA-59 from Activity, following vectors for a nearby Swordfish, the team of Lieut. Large and Sub-Lieut. Yeo, 819 Squadron, on 1 May, scored again, bringing down BV-138 that was snooping their convoy.

The Pursuer and Searcher squadrons also supported Operation Anvil/Dragoon in August, but their activities are confined to patrolling, strikes, and air-to-ground support.

In November and December, new FM-2's off HMS Nairana, 835 Squadron (Lieut. Comdr. FV Jones RNVR), and HMS Campania, 813 Squadron (Lieut. Comdr. SG Cooke, RNVR), were on Arctic convoy escort with Convoy JW-61A. On 3 November, Lieut. Leamon and Sub-Lieut. Buxton brought down a BV-138. A second BV-138 was shot down by 813 Sub-Lieuts. Machin and Davis on the 13th. On the return trip, Sub-Lieut. Gordon, of 835, bagged still another BV-138 on 12 December.

In Arctic convoy escort duty in January and February 1945, flying from Nairana, 835 Squadron, and from HMS Vindex, 813 Squadron, FM-2's accounted at least five more scores and probably nine in total. On the 6th, an 813 section shot down a Ju-88. On the 10th, another 813 section intercepted three more Ju-88's, claiming one probable and two damaged. On the 20th, 835's Sub-Lieut. Gordon struck again, teaming with Sub-Lieut. Blanco for a Ju-88. Another section on the other side of the convoy formation claimed a probable on another Ju-88. At least one German source reports six Ju-88s lost in these attacks. In addition to these, three BV-138 snoopers were splashed in the same period.

On 26 March 1945, in a last action, FM-2's from 882 Squadron Lieut Comdr. GAM Flood, RNVR) off Searcher, escorting a flight of Avengers along the coast of Norway, was attacked by a flight of eight III Gruppe JG 5 Me-109Gs. The Wildcats (now called “Wildcat” instead of “Martlet” as the FAA adopts the USN names for carrier aircraft) reported downing four of the Me-109Gs at a cost of one Wildcat damaged. A fifth 109 was claimed as damaged. As near as can be determined from available Luftwaffe loss lists, there were three 109’s lost, werk# 412398 (Fw. Jaeger), 782139 (Uffz. Rösch), and 782270 (Fw. Dreisbach). One other 109 crashed, (pilot unknown) on landing, however the information available does not indicate if the crash was due to pilot error or from battle damage. Damage to this airplane was noted as 25%. Available Luftwaffe credits lists show no claims from this action.

The FAA also employed the F6F and the F4U. The only fighter-to-fighter FAA F6F action took place in May 1944. On 8 May, F6F's from the Fleet Air Arm's No. 800 Squadron (Lieut. Comdr. SJ Hall, DSC, RN), off HMS Emperor, while escorting a flight of Barracudas was attacked by a mixed group of Me-109's and FW-190's. Two F6F's were lost, one, probably, to anti-aircraft fire (one source indicates that both F6Fs were lost in a mid-air collision, not to any German fire of any kind); the Germans lost 2 Me-109's and one FW-190. The FW-190 was claimed by Sub-Lieut. Ritchie. Available Luftwaffe loss listings show three Me-109Gs lost in this action, werk# 14697 (Ofw. Kurt), 10347 (Uffz. Brettin), and unknown # (Fw. Horst). On the Luftwaffe side, Uffz. Hallstick claimed two F6Fs and Lieut. Prenzler claimed one.

On 14 May, 800 Squadron's leading scorer, Sub-Lieut. Ritchie (now with 4.5 victories) added an He-115 to his tally and the shared another He-115 with the CO of 804 Squadron, Lieut. Comdr. Orr, giving him a total of 6 victories for the war.

Prior to these actions, FAA F6F's were used for anti-aircraft suppression on raids against Tirpitz on 3 April 44 (Operation Tungsten). These included - from Emperor - 800 Squadron (Lieut. Comdr. Hall) and 804 Squadron (Lieut. Comdr. SG Orr, DSC, RNVR).

FAA F4U's also participated in Tungsten with 1834 Squadron (Lieut. Comdr. PN Charlton, DFC, RN) and 1836 Squadron (Lieut. Comdr. CC Tomkinson, RNVR) off Victorious, flying highcover for the raid. This was a role the FAA Corsairs of 1841 Squadron (Lieut. Comdr. RL Bigg-Wither, DCS & bar, RN) would repeat, flying off Formidable in Operation Mascot on 17 July and with 1841 joined by 1842 Squadron (Lieut. Comdr. AMcD Garland, RN) in Operation Goodwood in late August. No contact was made with any German aircraft. Indeed, the FAA F4U's never did tangle with any German aircraft, though not for lack of trying. After the winter of 1944-45, FAA F4U's were largely operating in the Indian and Pacific Oceans . . . pretty far away from the Germans.

Regards,

Rich

 

Adam, 5000 fpm and 507 mph (P-47J) max speed are nothing to "Spit" down on. No variation of the XIV could ever do that, not even the "Seafire". It was the veteran Spitfire pilots that said they were bested by the FW190 in 1943 in their prophecies of the Jug's doom against these same planes. That as we both know never came to fruition. In fact the Jug pilots claimed the opposite by their Jugs and were said to have "broken the Luftwaffe’s back" when compared to the P-51 and the P-38 by Eighth Air Force commanders. But because of the absurdity of claims like that to your mind, you insinuated that they must be exaggerating. If they were exaggerating, the story was held across all domains including in the retrospective analysis that Ninth did on its own operations after the war.

I know the Spitfire did well over the Battle of Britain but I have never heard any stories of it dominating anything other than HE-111s. There were a lot of them shot down during that campaign too. I think its myth grows with time. Perhaps it is not as lofty as you claim it to be. One thing is for certain, the American pilots in a Jug survived more and shot down more aircraft, and considering the fact you mocked them above by discussing how they "went walkabout" after so many hours as you were careful to "point out", that lets you know that those American pilots were relative rookies putting up those numbers. If the pilot's experience/skill is the #1 factor in air combat, something about that Jug was saving their behinds and taking the enemy down that wasn't doing the same for the Spitfire veterans and the Luftwaffe veterans.

As far as the dive and climb, the issue is not straight climb performance but the conservation of energy in the transition from dive to climb. This was the primary advantage of a Jug. The climb rate you are discussing is more initial climb. The issue is climb rate at altitude. The Jug had a very large supercharger which produces better performance in the thinner air compared to other planes that had smaller or no superchargers. The altitude also diminished its drag problems. The Jugs flying escort still had Jugs flying "high cover". Who dogfights with initial climbs? Who in their right mind would go down on the deck, in any plane? The plane that has the altitude names the terms of the fight. The plane below is at his mercy, yes, even if he is in a Spitfire.

As to your other question, I have no experience in vintage aircraft (unfortunately) since there is little opportunity to fly them where I live. The highest performance aircraft I fly are a Piper Arrow III and a Cessna 182, everything else is < 200hp, fixed gear, non-complex (dinks). I am not quite the ace you are.


Hello Rich,

I wasn't mocking the F6F, F4U or even the Zero. The discussion was a comparison to ETO fighters in kill ratios. ETO fighters didn't have a design requirement to land on carriers. That affects what you can do with the plane considerably. The F4U was more like a Jug than any other because it had the same P&W Double Wasp engine.

One thing is for sure. Both of those planes dominated the Zero in a pretty merciless fashion.

 

PLEASE re-read my last post, Jimbo. I love the intellectual debate between us. And I do respect your knowledge, and that isn't meant to sound patronizing, please believe me!

Blimey Rich - lots of facts! minutae! But what's your POINT?

 

</div><div class='quotemain'>Blimey Rich - lots of facts! minutae! But what's your POINT?[/b]

Well, because you wrote on Nov 17 2005 at 0841:

</div><div class='quotemain'>Yes, it is interesting to speculate on how the Hellcat and Corsair would've fared in Europe. I think the Corsair was probably the better of the two, but the Hellcat was deployed in wider numbers.[/b]

Just answering the question. I’ll wander back to my lurking perch now.

Rich

 

(jimbotosome @ Nov 18 2005, 07:49 PM) [post=41781]Adam, 5000 fpm and 507 mph (P-47J) max speed are nothing to "Spit" down on. No variation of the XIV could ever do that, not even the "Seafire". It was the veteran Spitfire pilots that said they were bested by the FW190 in 1943 in their prophecies of the Jug's doom against these same planes. That as we both know never came to fruition. In fact the Jug pilots claimed the opposite by their Jugs and were said to have "broken the Luftwaffe?s back" when compared to the P-51 and the P-38 by Eighth Air Force commanders. But because of the absurdity of claims like that to your mind, you insinuated that they must be exaggerating. If they were exaggerating, the story was held across all domains including in the retrospective analysis that Ninth did on its own operations after the war.

I know the Spitfire did well over the Battle of Britain but I have never heard any stories of it dominating anything other than HE-111s. There were a lot of them shot down during that campaign too. I think its myth grows with time. Perhaps it is not as lofty as you claim it to be. One thing is for certain, the American pilots in a Jug survived more and shot down more aircraft, and considering the fact you mocked them above by discussing how they "went walkabout" after so many hours as you were careful to "point out", that lets you know that those American pilots were relative rookies putting up those numbers. If the pilot's experience/skill is the #1 factor in air combat, something about that Jug was saving their behinds and taking the enemy down that wasn't doing the same for the Spitfire veterans and the Luftwaffe veterans.

As far as the dive and climb, the issue is not straight climb performance but the conservation of energy in the transition from dive to climb. This was the primary advantage of a Jug. The climb rate you are discussing is more initial climb. The issue is climb rate at altitude. The Jug had a very large supercharger which produces better performance in the thinner air compared to other planes that had smaller or no superchargers. The altitude also diminished its drag problems. The Jugs flying escort still had Jugs flying "high cover". Who dogfights with initial climbs? Who in their right mind would go down on the deck, in any plane? The plane that has the altitude names the terms of the fight. The plane below is at his mercy, yes, even if he is in a Spitfire.

As to your other question, I have no experience in vintage aircraft (unfortunately) since there is little opportunity to fly them where I live. The highest performance aircraft I fly are a Piper Arrow III and a Cessna 182, everything else is < 200hp, fixed gear, non-complex (dinks). I am not quite the ace you are.


Hello Rich,

I wasn't mocking the F6F, F4U or even the Zero. The discussion was a comparison to ETO fighters in kill ratios. ETO fighters didn't have a design requirement to land on carriers. That affects what you can do with the plane considerably. The F4U was more like a Jug than any other because it had the same P&W Double Wasp engine.

One thing is for sure. Both of those planes dominated the Zero in a pretty merciless fashion.

[/b]

Jimbo - if you are being serious when you say you have never heard stories of the Spitfire dominating anything other than He111s, then all I can say is that statement does more to confirm my suspicion that American parochialism is alive and well than anything you have hithero written!

Its sad but true that, to many Americans, if it dosen't happen in the US, it dosen't happen! How many Americans know, for instance, that if it wasn't for three crucial British inventions, then the huge US Navy fleet carriers, with which it is able to project US foriegn policy around the globe, simply wouldn't exist? Those inventions were, of course, the angled flight desk, the steam catapault, and the mirrored landing system. Oh, and how about the Harrier V/STOL fighter in service with the USMC? To say nothing of Radar, the all-flying tailplane (which gave the F-86 in its E variant the edge over the Mig 15), even the jet engine itself: all British inventions!!!

It is hardly surprising that Americans' knowledge of British battles is sketchy at best (although I expected better from you, Jimbo). One has only to consider that laughable segment of the movie "Pearl Harbor" where Hollywood portrays the RAF as fighting the Battle of Britain in 1941(!) to understand that European history in not widely understood stateside. Heck, even my American wife though thought Amsterdam was in Denmark!

If you can get hold of a copy, may I suggest you read a book by Dr Alfred Price entitled "The Spitfire Story". It will tell you exactly which aircraft the Spitfire did, and didn't "dominate". And let me tell you, the list in the former catergory extends way beyond merely the He111! It was Spitfire XIVs - not Mustangs, not P-47s- but Spitfire XIVs that shot down the first Me262 jets of WW2 in October, 1944. I corresponded with one of the men who did it. That event, should have the inclination to look it up, is well documented.

Moreover, the Spitfire was further developed into its final wartime variant, the Mk 21, which entered service with No 91 Squadron at Manston in January, 1945. This aircraft was capable of almost 400mph TAS at just 4000 feet - nothing but an aircraft specially modified for the purpose (ie stripped of all armour, guns, etc) could catch it, not even a T-bolt! And at 26,000 feet, its optimum fighting height, it could do almost 460 mph - the same as a P-47N. Its time to 30,000 feet was a shade under eight minutes. Initial climb rate 4,800 fpm. Its ceiling was 43,000 feet, 2000 feet higher than the contemoprary P-47. And these figures, courtesy of tests at Boscombe Down and the Air Fighting Development Unit at Wittering, were obtained using an extensively flown aircraft on which the paintwork was chipped and some of the filler had worked out of the joints on the wing leading edges - it wasn't even representative of a brand new machine! Nor was it the end of the Spitfire family: there was still the yet further developed Spitfire 22 and 24....

However, when you made the statement that the the Spit dominated only the He111, I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were simply being deliberately provocative, as such a statement belies the knowledge you have previously demonstrated...

The P-47 J (or XP-47J, to be precise) became the first propellor driven fighter to exceed 500mph in level flight on August 4, 1944, clocking exactly 504mph. However, this performance was achieved only by extensve re-design and lightening of the airframe. For instance, the 2800 hp Pratt & Whitney R-2800-57 © engine was housed inside a close-fitting cowling and cooled by a fan. The ventral intake for the CH-5 turbosupercharger was separated from the engine cowling and moved aft. The four-bladed propeller was fitted with a large conical-shaped spinner. The wing structure was lightened and the armament was reduced from eight to six 0.50-inch machine guns. Maximum speed of the P-47J was 507 mph at 34,300 feet, range was 765 miles at 400 mph, 1070 miles at economical cruising speed. An altitude of 15,000 feet could be reached in 4.5 minutes. Service ceiling was 45,000 feet. However, the P-47J was a completely new airframe and not a conversion of an existing P-47D. It never went into production. My point here is that the Spitfire, whose basic design was completed in 1935, still achieved nearly comprable performance figures 10 years later in its 1945 incarnation as the Mk21. If the Spitfire was the "best the British could do", then I, for one, see nothing to denegrate in that achievement.

View attachment 1272 View attachment 1273

 

</div><div class='quotemain'>Its sad but true that, to many Americans, if it dosen't happen in the US, it dosen't happen! How many Americans know, for instance, that if it wasn't for three crucial British inventions, then the huge US Navy fleet carriers, with which it is able to project US foriegn policy around the globe, simply wouldn't exist? Those inventions were, of course, the angled flight desk, the steam catapault, and the mirrored landing system. [/b]

I hate being argumentative, but you seem to like to play on a perceived provincialism on the part of your cousins across the Atlantic.

I would suggest to you that anyone, even in the benighted USA, with a more than passing acquaintance with the history of carrier operations is very much aware of the initial development of the angle deck concept and the steam catapult by the British. Fresnel type landing systems, however, were only improved upon by the Royal Navy and, even later, the USN improved on the RN concept. Truth be known, the Japanese institutionalized these landing systems on their carriers before WWII. On the other hand, catapults for aircraft, generally, both powder charged and hydraulic were developed by the USN. The steam catapult is generally considered the logical outgrowth of that technology. And then there’s the small matter of arrestor cables, also a USN invention. RN carriers went a not insignificant number of years in the interwar period without benefit of arrestor cables, gently floating their planes up over the ramp, delicately setting them down, and hoping for the best. I’d also point out that it was the RN that came up with that wonderful concept of rubber carrier decks to facilitate landing without the benefit of landing gear.

My point would be is that if you want to play “we invented the widget,” it is fairly easy to show where someone else either invented an equally important gizmo or whatchamacallit in the furtherance of the technology, or took “your” widget and made it better, or your widget was really something someone else used and you improved upon, or, just maybe, your widget was pretty dumb. These often unpleasant facts are especially true when dealing with implements and technology of war.

Someone is always working on something that 5000 miles away someone else is working on. If they’re friends, then a lot of duplication can be eliminated. Why do you think the USN wasn’t particularly experimenting with angle decks? And why do you think the USN immediately set about converting its Essex class carriers to steam catapults and then angle decks after the RN work on these concepts? Do you really believe the USN was unaware of the RN experiments? Do you suppose there would be some point to going to the effort to duplicate the experiments, of which you were fully aware, being conducted by your ally? And do you really suppose that there were no USN representatives on the RN development teams? You would be mistaken.

Always give credit where credit is due, but don’t over inflate it and don't presume that others, despite the lack of the benefit of your particular nationality, are unaware of the history of technological developments; it makes you look petty and just as provincial as you suspect others are.

Oh yeah, I deliberately did not comment on your jet engine or radar development statements as they are outside my fields of interest and I would not presume to comment on that of which I've no specific knowledge nor desire to research (so many books, so little time). In my experience, commenting in the absence of a knowledge base just gets you in trouble. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I presume you know what you're talking about.

Rich

 

Adam, I am not sure of the benefits of as we say a "pissing contest' here (I believe you folks use the idiom "toss about"). Numbers on UK web sites make the Spit look like it could walk on water, numbers on US web sites do the same to the Mustang. In the US, they don't take their hat off and hit a knee when the word "Spitfire" is uttered. I can't imagine how strange that sounds to your ears.

If you are in to the "we did this" and "we did that" then I think that would be fruitless. What am I going to counter with? "we invented/discovered electricity, telegraphs, telephones, assembly lines, transistors, microprocessors, computers, airplanes, cars, TV, stealth, night vision, blah, blah, blah". Things that neither side has invented but both sides have mastered are egos, arrogance and vanity. We come about those things honestly.

Perhaps we should both check our "pride" at the door and realize that without Britain AND without the US, there would be no opportunity for vain debates such as these today, but possibly just a couple of German colonies in their places under a brutal dictator regime run by Hitler's or Himmler's sons. If it were not for either of these countries, democracies could not have survived in the world. This not to mention the contribution of other Allied nations too, who contributions are themselves monumental when compared to their relative size.

My point was simply this. The legend of the Mustang is alive and well in the US. The legend of the Spitfire is alive and well in the UK. I don't assume you think the Mustang was the greatest plane of the war and subscribe to its lore, just as you shouldn't be surprised that the Americans don't do the same to the Spit.

Adam, I think it is equally unflattering to the dignity of both us to get into that kind of discussion which are packed with pride more than indisputable facts. But I am too prideful to recognize that we are both humans, both competitive and both proud of our heritages so I see no reason to lose respect for you if we both get lost in the moment and act a little childish in "one-ups-man-ship" from time to time. Perhaps its the nature of the beast in our cases.

If there is something to recognize here it is that despite the mutual nationalistic pride that both the UK and the US have shared for generations past including WWII (that's no secret right?), that they have somehow always manage to stand united along with their faithful allies for over 100 years now. Who thinks that without NATO the Soviets would not be trying to conquer Europe and then eventually the US with communism? Is there any greater accomplishment by either nation that the one where they have stood united for decades and prevented any tyrant, dictatorship or oligarchy from gaining control and suppressing the freedom we both hold so dear? Is there a greater invention than our freedom? If not then don't we share equally in that one?

Jim

 

Jimbo/Rich - thank you for your last postings.

First off, let me say I appreciate the concillatory tone, and I was in no way trying to insult our American cousins, for whom I generally have the greatest regard. I think I am on record as acknowledging the debt of gratitude we in the UK owe to the US, without whose vast resources WW2 could never have been brought to a victorious Allied conclusion. Churchill knew this, and anyone with even a passing interest in twentieth century history knows it too. At best, the UK could've perhaps kept Hitler away from our own shores, but I shudder when I think that that may have become the status quo for decades after 1940....

It was simply that I am often struck, when visiting the US, and in conversation even with ex-pat Americans, how generally accepted it is that America not only does everything better, but it does it first. I well remember visting RAF Lakenheath in Suffolk back in 1979, when it was home to a wing of F-111 Fighter-Bombers, and being handed a brochure regarding some fete or other the base was shortly to host, with the instruction to "go post up in your village"!!! (Yes, I mean the village of London only has a population of 9 million and is one of the largest, busiest urban conurbations in the world!) The impression I got, substantiated by many conversations since, is that Americans view the British as somehow quaint, and a bit backward. Therefore, how can an aircraft like the Spitfire possibly in any way be superior to an indigenous American product? Ok, I know I am generalising, but I had begun to feel that I was being talked down to. I apologise if I was wrong and my remarks about American parochialism caused offence.

I was trying very hard to illustrate that the Spitfire's reputation is built on far more than nationalistic jingoism. Some reputations are well deserved, some aren't. The Spitfire falls very much into the former catergory. I argue the Spitfire's case not because of patriotic bias (alright, maybe there's a lttle bit of that as well!), but mostly in the interests of historical accuracy. Geuss I'm a bit anal. But for the record, if I was in the fortunate position of having sufficient money to go out and buy either a Spitfire, Mustang, or Thunderbolt, I would have a hard time choosing - I think they are all superb aircraft!

By the way, the mirrored landing system was invented by two RN officers and a Wren in an office in London, using vanity mirrors and some lengths of cord. It was a system in which a red light - a "meatball" - was reflected off a large parabolic mirror and projected aft to provide glideslope data to the pilot on approach. Its still in common usage today, but the meatball is now the luminous yellow display of the FRESNEL LENS system which replaced it and which was developed by the US Navy. You are quite right.

 

(adamcotton @ Nov 20 2005, 04:37 AM) [post=41835]By the way, the mirrored landing system was invented by two RN officers and a Wren in an office in London, using vanity mirrors and some lengths of cord. It was a system in which a red light - a "meatball" - was reflected off a large parabolic mirror and projected aft to provide glideslope data to the pilot on approach. Its still in common usage today, but the meatball is now the luminous yellow display of the FRESNEL LENS system which replaced it and which was developed by the US Navy. [/b]
This "mirrored" landing system is also employed at virtually all US airports universally today. We have two major versions PAPI (Precisions Approach Path Indicator) and VASIs (Visual Approach Slope Indicator). with the VASI (2 light system) being slowly phased out for PAPI (4 light system). The VASI indicates red above the white when you are on glide slope, two reds if you are way low, two whites if you are way high. I assume you folks have the same or a similar system since you invented it.

Considering the fact that German had an 8 year head start on a war minded and war funded approach to the design of their equipment, that since they knew there would be a war before anyone else if you know what I mean, the innovations of the Allies in my opinion caught and eclipsed theirs. The main reason for this is that the multiple cultures and mindsets benefit from have the objectivity to take a different approach at solving a problem. When a solution was found or an innovation was discovered, the results tended to be an amalgam of best of all sides. The competitive natures of our people’s as often demonstrated on posts on this site actually serve as a benefit in that both sides could stay motivated and kept the creative and competitive juices flowing.

If there is one creation of the British that stands out above any and all others it is the concept of modern democracy of people-rule of the government. It’s hard to top that one. From the Magna Charta to the new Iraqi government, this concept has prevented many a world war that would have started, and prevented many a dictatorship from rising in areas it flourishes. How many nations in the world, can the average Joe, get into his car, drive out to the airport, and fly around sightseeing, taking aerial photographs, or simply go on a little trip somewhere, from the standpoints of affording it (though that might be debatable) and from the privilege to do so, without having to ask permission for anything but to takeoff and land. You can’t beat it.

 

Jimbo - yes, we too use both VASI and PAPI sytems in this country, certainly at all the major municpal airports. Fly down to one of the grass strips on the Isle of Wight and you won't be so lucky, but generally it's pretty ubiqitous. I first used it back in 1983 when learning to fly at Shoreham, in West Sussex (right on the south coast). It was particularly useful when I was adding my Night Rating to my licence.

Just as a point of interest, Shoreham is the oldest licenced civil airport in the UK. Its perimiter road is endearingly called "Cecil Pashley Way" after the flying instructor who taught there back in nineteen-hundred-and-God-knows-when, and during WW2 it was often used as a forward operating base for Spitfire units. Pierre Clostermann mentions Shoreham in his book, "The Big Show", as he put down there after gaining his first victories in summer, 1943. As well as being a nice airfield, it also houses the D-Day Aviation museum (formerly at Appledram). Its curator wrote a book a few years ago called "Merlin and the Sabre", which was about the Spitfire and Typhoon units that operated from the south coast during the war. My then girlfriend typset it, and I proof-read it. I think they are still selling it there.

For a number of years, the museum boasted its own gate-guardian in the form of a full scale fibreglass replica of a Spitfire IX, replete in D-Day invasion stripes. It was actually one of several such models that had formed the "set dressing" for the 1988 TV series "Piece of Cake" (based on the enponymous 1983 novel by Derek Robinson). Sadly, the Spitfire has been towed away, but it always made the passengers on the trains that run by the airfield gawp...

By the way Jimbo, have there been any noticeable restrictions placed on that freedom to fly in the U.S. since 9/11?

 

Rich,

Dr Robert Watson-Watt invented RADAR (or Radio Detection and Location, as it was originally called) in Britain in 1935. Over the next five years, it was developed and integrated into a complete command and control system that comprised information filter rooms and telephone links, etc, direct to fighter Sector Stations. It was as crucial to the RAF victory in 1940 as were the Spitfire and Hurricanes themselves.

RAF pilot Frank Whittle patented his jet engine, based on a centrifugal flow compressor, in the 1920s, although an Italian chap called Conoda actually built the first ever turbine "engine" back in the 1880s....

When the RAF finally adopted Whittle's jet engine, in the Gloster Meteor, they called it the Nene, which Britain sold to both America and Russia, the licence built versions of which became the powerplants of the F-86 Sabre and Mig 15 respectively!

The all-flying tail, which wasn't incorporated onto the F-86 Sabre until the "E" variant of 1952, was actually first incorporated into the design of the Miles M-52. This was a British supersonic research aircraft project which was undertaken in top secret conditions between 1942 and 1945. The Air Ministry later cancelled the project for reasons that remain controversial to this day, while all of the existing work was sent to the Bell Aircraft company in the United States. Two years later the Bell X-1 was the first plane to break the sound barrier. But as even Chuck Yeager still thinks the all-flying tailplane was an American invention, and as he is somewhat more eminent in aviation circles than I, geuss who people listen to....?

Anyway, not looking to stir the cauldron again, just thought you might be interested in a few facts.

 

Didn't the British abandon their attempts at supersonic flight because of a fatal crash by De Havilland's boy in 1947? If I remember correctly they believed there was an invisible "wall of air" at the speed of sound and viewed it as too risky to keep trying.

The Bell X-1 was developed by NASA (then NACA) and the USAAF starting in 1944. I don't believe it was sourced from Britian at all but it was completely a Bell creation.

Also, I thought radar stood for "RAdio Detection And Ranging".

 

At the time the Miles M.52 project was abandoned in 1945, there hadn't yet been any fatal crashes. However, there was a feeling in Air Ministry circles at war's end that supersonic research was just too dangerous an endeavour to risk pilots lives on. (British conservatism, I geuss. ) Indeed, Geoffery De Haviland was later killed diving his tailess DH 108 (based on the German Me163 Komet) toward mach one, and John Derry and his navigator killed making sonic booms at Farnborough in 1951. However, Mike Lithgow took his Supermarine Swift through mach one routinely in the early 50s - in a shallow dive. . Neville Duke also took the prototype Hunter through the sound barrier in a shallow dive.

Yes, Jimbo. I should have said Radio Detection and Ranging. Those bloody gremlins...



Well, as I have already said, all the fruits of the research were turned over to Bell, including the all flying tail. If you take a look at the shape of the Miles 52 and the Bell X-1, you will see they are quite similar. However, I am not of course suggesting that Bell performed no original design work on the X-1 which, as you say, they started work on in '44. They did, however, incorporate design features of the M52 and modify certain previously designed features in light of the British reseach.

In the spirit of co-operation and sharing that was the legacy of WW2, Britain was keen to share her knowledge with the US, whom it was hoped would reciprocate and thereby further technical advances to the mutual benefit of both nations.

 

(adamcotton @ Nov 21 2005, 05:38 AM) [post=41867]By the way Jimbo, have there been any noticeable restrictions placed on that freedom to fly in the U.S. since 9/11?
[/b]
Yes, several but all fairly minor. Any class D or above (controlled) now have to be fenced in and accessed via a card pilots carry. They have added a few and expanded a few ADIZ's (Air Defense Identification Zone).

A while back an idiot plotted a VFR course from Smoketown, Pennsylvania, to Lumberton, North Carolina by drawing a direct line, climbed into a little Cessna 150 with a student pilot flying right seat and flew straight to his distination. Of course this course flew into the ADIZ that covers the capital and flying VFR he was not in radio contact with anyone nor monitoring local frequencies or emergency frequencies. This forced and evacuation of the Capital and the White House Staff when into the bunker system built below it (the president wasn't in DC at the time). He was an older fellow and had just gotten his license. When he was intercepted by a couple of F-16s and a Blackhawk helicopter, he freaked out and the student pilot riding along had to take over and land it. They pulled his ticket but it started a bunch of talk about making the entire DC area an ADIZ. Fortunately that had died down.

 

Crikey! I think I'd be somewhat alarmed to see a couple of jet fighters and a battlifield helicopter intercept me, too! Still, he should've known better....