Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Franek Grabowski
Burma was a secondary front for RAF, most modern and potent fighters going on ETO
|
The RAF used Spitfires and Mosquitos in the Far East but their record vs. Japan was not very impressive, especially after we discount inflated pilot claims.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Franek Grabowski
how it happenned Mustang was retained in Britain and T-bolt send far and away to replace Hurricanes?
|
Because the Mustang and Spitfire were too flimsy for ground attack, and the Typhoon was a flop in its intended role as an escort fighter.
On the other hand, the Thunderbolt was excellent at both missions, and was immediately popular with the RAF pilots in the Far East. Not surprisingly, "versatility" was cited by them as the Thunderbolt's best asset. By that time, the USAAF had plenty of long range fighters in the skies over Burma and the RAF did not need their own.
The other alternative for the RAF was to replace every Hurricane with a combination of Mustangs, Spitfires, Typhoons -- and Tempests if available. That would be expensive, impractical, and probably impossible. When given a choice, it does not make sense to use four different aircraft when one type can meet the requirements.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Franek Grabowski
P-51D was optimised for low altitudes, having similar settings as LF Spitfires
|
8th Air Force pilots viewed that as a mistake. Maybe the Tac Recons, Jabos and Buzz Bomb chasers preferred more power at low level, but the escort pilots did not want a loss of power at high altitude.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Franek Grabowski
Simply there was no demand for performance at higher altitudes
|
If that were true, the Messerschmitt Bf 109 would not have stayed in production.
The Germans continued to upgrade it because the Focke Wulf 190 had poor performance above 20,000 feet -- the engine lost so much power that it was a sitting duck at 28,000 or more. I suppose the Dora 9 was somewhat improved -- and helped by the intentionally lowered performance of Merlin engines at high altitude. Besides, the P-51A was faster than P-51D at low altitude. The Allison engine was more durable and burned about 30% less fuel on cruise settings.
If the P-47N (or just the wings) project was started a year earlier, there was no need for Mustangs with Merlin engines.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Franek Grabowski
Additionally I think FAA considered Seafire an only naval fighter able to fight on equal terms with German fighters and no Hellcats nor Corsairs were emplyed in range of German fighters
|
The FAA considered the Seafire as "unsuitable for carrier operations".
The Seafire had very little successful contact with enemy fighters. The accident rate was disturbing, and range was poor. That is why the British wanted more Hellcats and Corsairs.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Franek Grabowski
Weight is always an enemy of performance and some facts should be reconsidered by T-bolt fans.
|
If weight is that important, then British and German fighters would have been easy meat for Japanese pilots.