Placing the Fairey Battle.

[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.

[Franek Grabowski]

Jukka
Aircraft is not a devil flown by bad forces. It is all about science called aerodynamics and the key issue in an aircraft's aerodynamics is the airfoil and then the wing. That said, Graham's (and mine) comments on Tempest vs Typhoon airfoil characteristics is based on common (tosome degree) knowledge based on years of research.
I am also intrigued on your derogatory comments on Mustang and praising of Thunderbolt. It looks you believe both Britons (yes, they had switched plans for both types, having both at hand in quantities) and Americans were complete idiots replacing Thunderbolt in escort missions. Obviously airmen's comments do not matter as well. But well, considering you have the comfort not to go there and fight for another day, you are free to live with your beliefs.

Tony
OK, I thought you meant blood loss in combat, which actually was not that high, bulk of the losses being to extermination of population on occupied territories by both regimes. That said, I have to note that the real problem was not with armed forces but a political will. This must be seen with political corruption and treason on the highest levels of both American and British societies. Philby or Harriman were just needles in the haystock, and the real and current problem is that others were not pursued with all strength available.
Concerning books, it is a serious problem, but it must be had in mind that only in recent years Soviet archives were opened to some degree allowing for independent research. Results are astonishing and definetelly change the view of the war. That said, my comments on Il-2 are based on research in primary and period Soviet documents. Most significant find is definetelly that the aircraft was frequently used for ordinary level bombing and not ground attack missions! Simply, there were no other aircraft available in quantities. I have been interested on this particular aircraft and even have had written an article-summary of recent knowledge on the type.
I would not view British policy towards army aviation through this particular scope, and while talking about butcher, I would take some comparison of numbers. Soviets claimed they have lost some 600,000 men in Poland in 1944/45 alone. US lost some 180,000 servicemen during the whole war, and you cannot say they were not fighting.

[Jukka Juutinen]

Originally Posted by Franek Grabowski

Soviets claimed they have lost some 600,000 men in Poland in 1944/45 alone. US lost some 180,000 servicemen during the whole war, and you cannot say they were not fighting.

But do read what most German veteran memoirs say about the respective combat prowess of US and Soviet soldiers. E.g. Otto Carius makes some very interesting remarks. Overall, it can be said that Yanks (all possible insults intented) let the others do the bloodiest work. To put these "huge" losses of 180,000 KIA in perspective: it is only slightly over 2 times the KIA suffered by Finland and less than a third of the losses of the ACW. The US was the only major combatant whose existence was not in slightest jeopardy even after the direst military defeat (if FDR´s One World dreams are not counted as such).

[tcolvin]

Originally Posted by Franek Grabowski

Jukka
Tony
OK, I thought you meant blood loss in combat, which actually was not that high, bulk of the losses being to extermination of population on occupied territories by both regimes. That said, I have to note that the real problem was not with armed forces but a political will. This must be seen with political corruption and treason on the highest levels of both American and British societies. Philby or Harriman were just needles in the haystock, and the real and current problem is that others were not pursued with all strength available.
Concerning books, it is a serious problem, but it must be had in mind that only in recent years Soviet archives were opened to some degree allowing for independent research. Results are astonishing and definetelly change the view of the war. That said, my comments on Il-2 are based on research in primary and period Soviet documents. Most significant find is definetelly that the aircraft was frequently used for ordinary level bombing and not ground attack missions! Simply, there were no other aircraft available in quantities. I have been interested on this particular aircraft and even have had written an article-summary of recent knowledge on the type.
I would not view British policy towards army aviation through this particular scope, and while talking about butcher, I would take some comparison of numbers. Soviets claimed they have lost some 600,000 men in Poland in 1944/45 alone. US lost some 180,000 servicemen during the whole war, and you cannot say they were not fighting.

Franek.

Is there any way of getting to see your article-summary in English?
If you ever publish anything on the IL-2 in English then please put me down for a copy.

The RAF lost 47,000 aircrew, some say 55,000. Compare that with the 30,000 killed in the U-Bootwaffe.

[Jukka Juutinen]

Franek, when Swedish AF pilots were testing some Allied designs in 1944, they recommended that the Thunderbolt be bought, not the Mustang.

And regarding the Typhoon/Tempest: please provide TESTED (not calculated) data on the issue. Since mr. Brown was personally flying these tests, I tend to believe his claims over calculated data. Or why did they conduct flight testing at all? Why are aircraft still tested in flight? Shouldn´t a look at your beloved Hoerner give all the answers?

[Franek Grabowski]

This proves entirely nothing. They simply could consider radial engine simplier to maintenance. I never did mean P-47 was useless at all, I did mean it did not fit needs of long range escort duties as found on ETO. From this standpoint, Mustang is clearly superior at all views.

[Franek Grabowski]

This proves entirely nothing. They simply could consider radial engine simplier to maintenance. I never did mean P-47 was useless at all, I did mean it did not fit needs of long range escort duties as found on ETO. From this standpoint, Mustang is clearly superior at all views.
PS Gents, leave me some time to do reading. There was indeed some conflict in regard of army aviation.

[Jukka Juutinen]

Now you are saying the "overcomplicated" P-47 is easier to maintain than the P-51?