Placing the Fairey Battle.

[Jukka Juutinen]

Originally Posted by Franek Grabowski

Because Thunderbolt was an 'overpaid' plane. It was too heavy, too expensive, not very manouverable.

Another BS statement for the P-47 e.g. rolled better than your beloved PoS Mustang. Using WEP it could operate from similar sized runways that the PoS Mustang. As for prices, it was only some 15% more expensive than the Hellcat, supposedly a very production friendly design. Comparisons with the flimsy PoS Mustang are not fair for the latter is capable of carrying considerably smaller external stores or internal armament.

[Juha]

Jukka
yes I noticed but I don't think that 4-bladed+bubble canopy made much difference on roll-rate, which IIRC AFDU valued highly at that time and had not much effect on dive and had not significant effect on zoom climb even if probably effected somewhat on climb. So IMHO 4-bladed+bubble canopy would have not affect much AFDU's conclusions maybe they would have changed the adjective.

[Jukka Juutinen]

Well, that change of adjective might have resulted in very significantly different tone.

On the CMN, Brown states:"Our job at RAE Farnborough was to determine how critical this limiting Mach number was if taken to the ultimate loss of control." And: "From these tests it was clear that the true limiting Mach number of the Typhoon was 0.79 and the true critical Mach number was 0.81." On the Tempest: "Our other great interest in the Tempest V at the RAE was in its high Mach number characteristics, and thse proved to be very similar to those of the Typhoon, except that it had a limiting Mach number of 0.81 true and a critical Mach number 0.83 true."

So, you may believe theoretical pencil pushing wankers, err Hoerners, I do believe real testing.

[Graham Boak]

I do believe in results taken from a wide range of aircraft from several manufacturers, several nations and years of testing, challenged and confirmed over decades of design and flight. Some may prefer single unsupported anecdotes but a solid backlog of evidence is how engineering actually works. If you actually believe that key design engineers are all pencil-pushing wankers, that reflects only on the credibility of your contributions.

That said, more politely than the comment deserved, this anecdote does have the advantage of being specific to type. It is possible that the wing design was not the critical factor with the Tempest. It is always possible to do worse than the optimum, if never better. For example the P-38, despite its thick wing (as acknowledged by Kelly Johnson), the limited factor is generally thought to be due to interference between the fuselage and the nacelles. The Tempest has no such multi-body interference, but perhaps some other factor came into play? There seems to be no obvious candidates.

However, we also have the evidence of the maximum speeds presented in the manual. Without allowing for the unknown pressure errors it is impossible to be precise, but they suggest a Mcrit of the Tempest around 0.9. For the real Mcrit to be 0.82 would require a stonking pressure error, not unheard of on thick-winged draggy aircraft such as the Vengeance (which has been claimed as supersonic – yeah) but exceedingly unlikely here.

It would be interesting to round off this sub-thread with the equivalent maximum speeds for the Typhoon, if anyone has access to them? Just how close are they to those of the Tempest? They might appear misleading close, if the PEs of both types differ. Does anyone have the Pilot’s Notes for each type?

[Jukka Juutinen]

Brown gives these figures, my copy of Typhoon PN dated November 1943 does not have the data except that the VNE is 525 mph (that of the Tempest V 540 mph):

Alt 20,000 25,000 30,000
IAS 425 mph 385 mph 340 mph

So you do admit that Horner´s data is NOT based on testing the TEMPEST?

[Graham Boak]

Re Hoerner/Tempest: I simply don't know: I haven't the reference to hand. It included other aircraft of that vintage and, I believe, later. I believe it did include the Spitfire, so that suggests British aircraft are included.

[tcolvin]

Originally Posted by Franek Grabowski

And here we come to the point. You are trying to prove your points based on fragmentary or untrue publications, often not based on any primary sources. The fact is, that I am not awared of any recommendable English-language studies on the subject. Perhaps I have missed something, being not forced to read in the language only, but indeed the situation may be called dramatic, especially having in mind several pro Soviet and derogatory comments.
Certainly Soviets had some bright men or some good ideas, quite often they were able to work in simplier and effective method, but considering a more general view and longer experience in modern warfare, they were simply ineffective, human losses being most important.
Several of their designs were obsolete, ineffective or even dangerous, and get their reputation only because of years of propaganda. Il-2 is the most typical example of what propaganda could make with an average, to say the least, aircraft, but the same situation was elsewhere. More, Soviets perfectly knew of those problems and demanded more Lend-Lease.
Now you ridicule Soviet dependancy on Lend-Lease, but in the previous post you have claimed Soviets were better equipped. How it was possible if Soviets claimed they got second rate stuff?
Last but not least, I have always understood Harris was butchering the foes, but Zhukov butchered their own.

1. Then I can't argue with you. Until someone produces new evidence I'm stuck with the old. I have tried to read Glanz, but he just recites lists without any insight. Then there's Beevor on Stalingrad and Berlin. Who else?
2. I have a big problem accepting your claim that I have swallowed soviet propaganda about the IL-2. I have quoted Schwabedissen - who is a primary source - about German awe of the IL-2; "All German commanders describe the IL-2 as a highly useful aerplane for ground attack. Owing to its good armour plating, the plane could only be brought down by very well directed ground fire". There is another primary source - Gifford Martel. He was one of the creators of the tank, and was Military Attache in Moscow during the battle of Kursk. The Russians uniquely gave him access. He even met Stalin. This is what he wrote about the IL-2 in 'The Russian Outlook'; "The discussion (in 1943) on armoured forces ended this series of conferences with the Russians. Certain points stood out. First of all, it was clear the Russians set great store by the Sturmovik (sic) aeroplane. No other nation had developed an aircraft which was armoured in this way. Were they all wrong and the Russians right? We made further enquiries as regards casualties in these aircraft from flak. This was not very easy to assess. The troops on the Russian front were not nearly so well equipped for producing flak. This question of using armoured aircraft was clearly very important, and we decided that we must take every opportunity of studying the matter and obtaining further information".
Martel was uninformed about the Hs129B so wrong that no other nation had produced an armoured aircraft (let alone the Junkers J-1 and Sopwith Salamander which he should have known about), and his argument was incoherent because if flak was more intense in the west (which I question), then the argument for an armoured aircraft in the west would have been GREATER and not less. When Martel was called home his successor was frozen out by the Russians, so the question about the IL-2 was never pursued. It is time someone did it. Franek? You look qualified.
3. You are plain wrong about Harris. Everybody called him "Bomber Harris", except his aircrew who called him "Butcher Harris" because he butchered them. It's exactly the same with Zhukov.

[tcolvin]

Originally Posted by Kutscha

You really think so? Better do some reading up on the conflict between the land segment and the air segment of the USAAF. The American air force fought really hard to seperate from the American Army, finally succeeding in 1947.

Maybe you should do some reading on the P-47 then.

How many times do you have to be told that about dive bombers without air superiority? They would have suffered the same fate, or even worse, than the bombers with the same, or even less, bombing results.

I know all about the USAAF separating. That is irrelevant to the situation in 1942/3/4/5.

Of course you need air superiority in order to bomb without being shot down by a defending aircraft.
Gaining air superiority was the job of the RAF. The USAAF achieved it, but the RAF, which never stopped talking about its expertise, never even tried to get air superiority over the Reich. The RAF argued that a long-range fighter could never compete with a short-range fighter and so the RAF would not waste time with the Mustang.
Given this prejudiced RAF mindset, it is clear why the RAF refused to have dive-bombers. It could not even imagine how it would gain air superiority.
This was also the reason why it was a disaster for the RAF to decide on CAS.
So do you now understand the answer to your question " How many times do you have to be told that about dive bombers without air superiority?"

[tcolvin]

Originally Posted by Nick Beale

I really do urge you to read Max Hastings' "Bomber Command" on this question and his trenchant observations on just how ill-prepared Bomber command in fact was for what it had always assumed it would do in the event of war.

P.S. I still think Fighter Command did a pretty good job in the Battle of Britain - we're still here, aren't we? - so give the RAF some credit.

Read Hastings. Maybe I am just parrotting him. Then why the argument?

Fighter Command did an outstanding job in the Battle of Britain. Period. Otherwise we'll start on a whole different argument.

[Graham Boak]

Absolutley untrue. Portals' meetings continually referred to the need for a long-range fighter. The RAF tried to get the Mustang - the British damn well nearly designed the Mustang - but deliveries were prioritised to the 8th and only small numbers were delivered until late in 1944. The RAF began the war with short range fighters, a policy that paid off in 1940 but left a legacy that restrained later operations. There was, however, plenty for those fighters to do.

Air superiority over Normandy was achieved by the joint operation of the RAF and the USAAF. 8th AF operations were only possible by the support of the RAF in providing an undisturbed base and escorting the bombers out, and back, when with the range of RAF fighters. Air superiority at a distance was only maintained by air supremacy at home. That was the RAF's achievement without any help from its US allies.

Hey! Aren't you the guy that was slating strategic bombing and interdiction behind enemy lines as a waste of effort? What do you want a long-range fighter for?