Jump to content

NZTyphoon

Members
  • Content Count

    416
  • Joined

Community Reputation

240 Excellent

About NZTyphoon

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    EnZed/Oz

Recent Profile Visitors

899 profile views
  1. According to Thomas Hitchcock's The Focke-Wulf Ta 152 the identity of this sole remaining machine is possibly Ta 152H-0 W. Nr. 150010, CW+CJ, Yellow 4 of 11./JG 301 then Green 4 of Stab/JG 301: the problem is, no data plates have yet been found on the airframe to prove its identity.
  2. I have just received the book Invasion Airfields Then and Now. As noted in After the battle Books' website, this book provides details of the airfields built by the Allies in Normandy up until D-Day + 90; it also describes how they were constructed and the techniques used to maintain the airstrips, including the use of PSP mats and oil to keep the surfaces from breaking up or turning to dust. This book is well worth having for anyone who is interested in the Battles of Normandy.
  3. You are right, the caption is wrong: W.Nr. 420625, 3U+AP of 6./ZG 2 was armed with 6 x 20mm MG 151/20 (outlined in red) plus 3 x 13mm Mg 131 (outlined green). It was an Me 410 A-1/U4 that was converted to a B-1/U: 3U+AP was shot down and destroyed on 13 July 1944.
  4. 4,000 lb cookies bad for the teeth. 🍪
  5. If anything the permutations possible with 2 TAF Typhoons almost rivaled those of the Bf 109G-6: for the Normandy campaign and beyond they could be; Bubble canopy, 3 bladed prop and bomb racks Bubble canopy, 3 bladed prop and rocket rails Bubble canopy, Tempest tailplanes, 3 bladed prop, bombs or rockets Bubble canopy, Tempest tailplanes, 4 bladed prop, bombs or rockets Not yet mentioned are the filters that were needed on the carburettor air intake to counter the vicious Normandy or Clavados dust (two types, with the "cuckoo door Vokes variant predominating, although the thought of having hot dome deflectors blasting across airfields would be entertaining...): there was also a tropical filter (Mod 421) that would have been in use during Bodenplatte: Also of note is the asymmetric load-out of a 44 gallon droptank and rockets... So, added to the list are Typhoons with carburettor filters (BoN) and/or tropical filter (BoBP) The main advantages with the 4 bladed propeller were improved take-off distances, initial climb rates and acceleration: it doesn't look as though the top speed changed much.
  6. In fact, the 4 bladed prop and Tempest tailplanes were fitted to smooth out the high-frequency vibrations that had always plagued the Typhoon... https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/54254-typhoon/?do=findComment&comment=854685 It was more a fortunate coincidence that Typhoons toting 1,000 lb bombs could take full advantage of the improved performance conferred by the 4 bladed propeller and Tempest tailplane (Chris Thomas: Typhoon Wings of 2nd TAF 1943-45 page 18):
  7. Having the 410 with the 50mm cannon would be even more disappointing, considering real-life experience:
  8. In real life, 2 TAF Mosquito missions were carefully planned and executed, plus they were often carried out at low altitudes. Mosquitos also carried out night attack missions, sometimes dropping flares to illuminate targets of opportunity, sometimes relying on medium bombers (B-25s) to drop the flares. In many respects Mosquito missions would make for an ideal scripted campaign.
  9. For sure, high altitude missions were carried out against the 8th Air Force, but 2 TAF had long had a policy of forcing the Jagdwaffe to fight at lower altitudes, meaning that most air to air combat in 2 TAF's area of operations took place at medium-low altitudes. As well as 2 TAF, the German fighters also had to deal with the USAAF's 9th [tactical] Air Force fighter-bombers.
  10. 😁Doh! But of course they're from Wołowski! The problem is, most of my library has been packed away in boxes, while the house undergoes some renovation: thanks for the reminder (as I look for the relevant box and dig out Wołowski). 😄😄
  11. Interesting; I have Peter Schmoll's book, plus his 'Nest of Eagles: Messerschmitt Production and Flight testing at Regensburg 1936-1945, but I can't place the other two references? Anyway, I stand corrected, there were more G-6/AS, especially, in service over Normandy than I assumed from my limited references. Re, Gunther Specht: coincidentally a kitset manufacturer called Eduard has recently brought out a 1/48 scale kitset of a Bf 109G-6/AS ; a markings options they provide in a so-called 'Bunny Club' edition is Specht's G-5/AS, Wnr. 110064, complete with the double x sized Night's Cross draped over the cowling, commemorating his 31st victory. The drop tank used on Specht's machine was an unusual 'finless bomb' pattern.
  12. G-5/U2 =GM-1 between March '43 & June '44 G-6/U2 = GM-1*, nothing to do with G-5/AS or G-6/AS About 5 minutes of research shows that; III./JG 1 was equipped with G-6 and G-5/U2 and G-6/U2s from July '44 to October I./JG 5 had no G-5/AS or G-6/AS II./JG 11 had a smattering of AS variants from September '44: Specht, being the Gruppenkommandeur had one of them. I./JG 3 is the only Gruppe listed as having G-5/G-6 or G-14/AS from July '44, right through the battle of Normandy (ended ~ end of August/ start of September '44). So, 1 and a smattering out of 4 cited Gruppen were wholly, or partially equipped with G-5, G-6/AS variants during the Battle of Normandy. Plus at least one Gruppenkommandeur and one Geschwaderkommandeur. *Jean-Claude Mermet: Messerschmitt Bf 109, pages 94 & 96; Jochen Prien & Peter Rodeike: Messerschmitt Bf 109 F, G & K Series, pages 107, 137
  13. Here is a Technical Order No. 01-60J-22, regarding the inspection of the landing gear uplocks and fairing door uplocks, dated 1 June 1944; this noted: Thus, it was considered by the boffins that it was a mechanical problem (ie; improper adjustment of uplocks and locks), rather than some aerodynamic flaw, or inherent weakness in the design, that led to the doors bowing, then being lost in flight during high speed dives. Here is a service bulletin Technical Order No. 01-60JE-9, dated 16 September 1944, regarding the in-field retrofitting/installation of landing gear uplocks to existing P-51Ds; it notes that: These uplocks were installed to prevent the possibility of the landing gear extending during high-speed manoeuvres, a serious situation that led to the loss of some P-51Ds early in their operational service life. Both of these T.Os predate TSCHEP 5R/RLB/MEM/2-6258 Wright Field, Dayton, Ohio Date:- 9th October, 1944 posted by CUJO-1970, and they predate the North American Service Bulletin No. P-51-198A described in paragraph 8 of the document on WW II Aircraft Performance, dated 27 February 1945. This also also noted the P-51 dive tests were conducted between 3 August and 16 September 1944 (the day T.O No. 01-60JE-9 was issued), and that during one dive, the P-51 involved in the tests lost a fairing door and strut fairing: this, too, was caused by badly maintained up latches... In effect, the problems with the landing gear doors described in the memorandum of 27 February 1945 had probably long since been tackled, first with the rigid inspection and adjustment of the landing gear uplocks and door latches, then with the installation of the landing gear latches on Ds The question is, were P-51Ds losing their landing gear fairings after (say) November-December 1944? The 27 February '45 memorandum doesn't mention anything about landing gear door failures continuing after remedial measures had been effected, and that is probably a good indication that the problem had been solved.
  14. Fortunately for the Luftwaffe, the JU-88C was still a successful night fighter/heavy fighter in 1944 and the 'insignificant' 190A-6 was the first sub variant to have four MG 151s, so it was still a useful fighter: unfortunately for the Luftwaffe, the Spitfire XIV was available for 2 TAF from well before Bodenplatte; while still with ADGB, the only reason it wasn't more prominent in operations over the continent, prior to September 1944, was because the Allies had already established air-superiority over Europe prior to D-Day, and the XIV proved to be well-suited to intercepting and shooting down V-1s. As it was, there were more Spitfire F. Mk. XIVs in operational service during - and for some time after - D-Day than the odd 109G-5/AS (76 built*), G-6/AS (first one reached an operational unit in late-June/early July*) or G-14/AS (late August-early September 1944). One or two individuals with an abiding, long-smouldering prejudice against the Spitfire XIV, isn't a good enough reason for it to be excluded from a Battle of Normandy collectors plane set. *Mermet, Jean-Claude: Messerschmitt Bf 109.
×
×
  • Create New...