Re: Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.
 

I think it was general with the experienced, and because of Flak.
Compare Sqn.Ldr Raymond (Cheval) Lallemont, CO of 609 Sqn; "Most of the rockets did end up short due to pilot inexperience, and because of Flak. We had to be very low to escape the accurate German Flak! That led to fear of collision with obstacles on the ground.... When they (tanks) were in the open a vertical dive was best (it obviated the gravity drop). When a tank was hiding, the only way was to go down almost straight and level, holding the aircraft very steady, particularly during the firing of the rockets until they had cleared the long launching rails. But the trick was to go as low and close as possible".

The boffins prescribed RPs as a stand-off weapon to offset the vulnerability of the unarmoured Typhoon. Battlefield conditions with Flak made that impossible with conscientious pilots. The unconscientious fired the rockets first at anything at all, and then climbed away out of range of Flak.

The wretched pilots did the best they could with the equipment they were given. Heroes all! It is not them under the microscope.

Re: Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.
 

Any weapon will be more accurate if applied close in (up to its limitations, anyway). However the way to become and remain experienced is to avoid the flak. I'm sure you are right about inexperienced pilots "shying away"; even without the flak, it is all a common enough experience, linked to a lack of practice in judging distance. Opening fire outside effective range was a normal novice reaction in aerial combat, I see no reason why air-to-ground should be any different.

However, despite Lallemand's comments, I don't believe any Typhoon delivered rockets in a dive that was actually vertical. (Other than perhaps very briefly, and that would not be conducive to good aiming.) This would have led to such an increase in speed that the aircraft would be unable to recover. It was not a specialised dive-bomber, fitted with air-brakes. Over-estimation of dive angles is another human "failing", that's one reason why it takes so long to train a good dive-bomber pilot.

It is also a bit difficult to reconcile his comments on low flying and vertical dives......

Rockets were introduced to reduce the vulnerability of the Hurricane, and by extension any fighter-bomber, not specifically the later Typhoon. They specifically replaced the 40mm gun because of the vulnerability of the attacking method and the inadequacies of the penetration. But I think we are going round in circles here.

Re: Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.
 

No. You're not right about vertical delivery. Cheval Lallemont was specific about going vertical; "When they (Tanks) were in the open a vertical dive was best, but not all pilots could put their aircraft in such a position, since one always gains the impression within an aircraft that the dive is steeper than is really the case. I advised them to do a roll during the dive, since in a shallow dive they would feel uncomfortable when the aircraft was on its back: in a vertical dive no such gravity pull would be experienced."

As to going round in circles, I rest my case that the irretrievable error made by the RAF was to turn its face against dive bombing. Here you see Typhoon pilots forced by their conscientiousness to find an accurate way of delivering ordnance and reverting to dive-bombing. A Bombphoon couldn't deliver from the vertical because it lacked a cradle to swing the bomb outside the propeller arc.

But Lallemont was pretty special, and probably the best Typhoon practitioner. His 609 Squadron was voted the best by 2TAF for an article in 'Stars and Stripes' magazine in August 1944: Leigh-Mallory ordered his staff to make the nomination; Coningham nominated 84 Group; Bingo Brown nominated 123 Wing; and Desmond Scott nominated 609 Squadron.

Re: Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.
 

There is no way the Typhoon did a perpendicular dive.

The Spitfire did dive bombing but the dive angle was 60* max and was considered a vertical dive.

Lallemont only commanded 609 from sometime in Aug to sometime in Sept 1944.

On Aug 8 the Americans called on the Typhoons to attack a small wood near the village of Le Theil. Seven double stacked Typhoons of 197 blasted the wood to pieces. Captured Germans, that survived, were eager to surrender.

So, did the USAAF, and the Soviets, also make an irretrievable error in not having dive bombers in Europe?

Re: Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.
 

"A Bombphoon couldn't deliver from the vertical because it lacked a cradle to swing the bomb outside the propeller arc."

Tony
please, check even the basic facts. Typhoon carried its bombs under wings! So no need for a cradle. You theories are full of that kind basic mistakes, so please, check the basics before trying to figure out all-embracing theories.

Juha

Re: Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.
 

You're absolutely right and I was wrong. Because their bombs were carried underwing away from the propeller arc, Bombphoons could bomb from the vertical.

And they DID bomb from the vertical. Did you even know that? I've just found many examples.

So both rockets and bombs were delivered from the vertical by 2TAF Typhoons. The only difference was the rockets were delivered from lower down.

The 'all-embracing theory' is that vertical dive-bombing was practised by RAF, Soviet Air Force and LW. The RAF differed only in that they lacked suitable aircraft equipped with dive brakes and armour.

Thanks. Now we are getting somewhere.

Re: Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.
 

You are 100% wrong with that statement. Read the literature.

Re: Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.
 

Tony, what Soviet aircraft could be called a dive bomber?

Re: Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.
 

Franek, the Pe 2.

A low-drag aircraft such as a fighter without airbrakes cannot spend enough time in a vertical dive to acquire a target and release a weapon from ideal conditions. That's why specialist dive-bombers have dive brakes, did anyone imagine they were there for decoration? You want to go vertical in a fighter? Sure, providing you have lots of altitude, and pull-up before exceeding limiting speeds. This does not take very long. You want to hit a target with a bomb from a vertical dive? Then you need time an altitude to move into that position, time and altitude to acquire the target, and time and altitude to position yourself to an ideal stable release condition. Then time and altitude to pull out. If dropped under unstable conditions or the wrong speeds, bombs will not go where they are aimed, they may even come up and hit the aircraft. Bombs are not purely passive objects to be dropped, they fly. Specialist dive bombers are accurate from a vertical dive (sometimes), fighters are not.

This isn't just bartalk, this is gravity. Uncle Isaac wins. Not just on a house percentage, but every time.

Re: Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.
 

The A-36 version of the P-51 was a dive bomber. It needed divebrakes to keep it from exceeding the 390mph dive limit speed. Yet you want us to believe the much heavier Typhoon did vertical (90*) dives without divebrakes. Yah right!

LOL, even the He177 was a dive bomber but its maximum dive angle was 45*.

Actually your interpretation of vertical dive is wrong. Typhoons pilots found that by making a steeper dive than they usually did with bombs increased the accuracy of the RPs. This was not vertical, but like the Spit's 60* angle it felt like it was vertical.