American Iron

[Talon_]

Remember the context guys. The 9th did well with their 100 octane low-boost Jugs and Ponies on the deck because the RAF and the 8th had been overhead all day every day shooting anything that moved for the past 8 months.

 

Allies are not going to have the luxury of a 10:1 advantage and Axis aren't going to have to contend with a limited supply of C3 fuel necessary for the Fw190As forcing 109s to stick to B4.

 

Basically the entire setup of Bodenplatte in multiplayer will be about as ahistorical and Axis-favouring as it can be.

Edited November 1, 2018 by Talon_

[Tag777]

This video is interesting. The instructor says that the ideal altitude for a P-47 is 30,000 feet or even higher.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FcGoc7P1MnA

[Ehret]

1 hour ago, Talon_ said:

Basically the entire setup of Bodenplatte in multiplayer will be about as ahistorical and Axis-favouring as it can be.

 

Will we get g-suits, even?

It'd help to conduct some useful tactics in such uneasy environment.

[Talon_]

Just now, Ehret said:

 

Will we get g-suits, even?

It'd help to conduct some useful tactics in such uneasy environment.

 

The American pilot pictured so far is wearing a G-suit.

[LeLv76_Erkki]

3 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

if you want to win a war in the real world the US types reign supreme, if you just want to "win the map" in a video game, the German types have the advantage.

 

I cannot agree completely. In Europe distances are much, much shorter than in the Pacific or Continental US. For fighting war in Europe, against Europeans, Germans and Soviets didnt need a whole lot of operational range. 400 liter tank was "enough"(cough until it wasnt) for an environment where distances are short, infrastructure and road network developed and airfields and suitable fields are everywhere. For the similar reasons(focus on tactical air force) Soviets and Germans also didnt focus on strategic long range bombers or maritime aircraft.

[Ehret]

It's possible to have an advantage on tactic level flying US planes but you have to work fast and be disciplined. Start aggressively but don't engage longer than few merges. After that, no matter the result use remaining altitude to extend. When safe re-climb, patrol and bounce again.

 

It does work very well when flying the Kittyhawk and the Airacobra is even better. Problem is... it gets very boring after a while.

[Bremspropeller]

51 minutes ago, LeLv76_Erkki said:

I cannot agree completely. In Europe distances are much, much shorter than in the Pacific or Continental US. For fighting war in Europe, against Europeans, Germans and Soviets didnt need a whole lot of operational range. 400 liter tank was "enough"(cough until it wasnt) for an environment where distances are short, infrastructure and road network developed and airfields and suitable fields are everywhere. For the similar reasons(focus on tactical air force) Soviets and Germans also didnt focus on strategic long range bombers or maritime aircraft.

 

It was to some degree the death of General Wever that buried german airpower forever. Even though the Luftwaffe was one of the first independent air arms, it never emancipated itself from being heavily involved in CAS and tactical operations. The Heer was calling the shots most of the time.

The first major fail happened during BoB, when the Luftwaffe was incapable of projecting airpower beyond the suburbs of London.

 

They lacked everything:

A bomber capable of projecting force far away from it's airfield (they tried with the awesome Bomber B program, but as always failed for mostly not being able of pulling through a project with slightly more than basic complexity*). Granted, the plan they had didn't call for force-projection, but the plan they had was "ten punds of pure suckery" anyway.

The Japanese had a strategical thinking, but that was a necessity due to the distances involved.

 

The P-51 wasn't a world-beater from the get-go (no american fighter was, in fact). But they succeeded in matching the right car with the right horse and it eventually worked very well.

But then again, they didn't have Willy Messerschmitt pulling any strings behind the scenes...

____

* And that produced a cascade of clusterducks down the line. Engines being mis-allocated, bombers had to do all kinds of weir stuff and fighters took the short straw in engine-procurement, which basicly left Germany without a roof in 1944.

 

 

 

[JtD]

It's said the strategic bombing program cost the Allies more than it cost Germany, up to the point were Germany had lost the air war (say late 1944). Basically this means the lack of a strategic bomber is not a shortcoming, it's just cost effective use of air power. (Unless you abuse tactical aircraft for the purpose of strategic bombing, then it's waste².)

 

The proper strategy were the V1 and V2, which of course were too late to play a role in the war.

[Bremspropeller]

Cost is relative in a total war - especially when you can economically strangle the enemy.

The air campaign did achieve one very important (unintended) goal: It pulled off german fighter assets from all the other fronts, leaving blank spots in hundreds of kilometers of uncovered front-line. Also, the air-campaign built a focus, so the major part of the Luftwaffe could be destroyed over relatively small amounts of real-estate.

The same is even more true for the RAF night campaign - strategically it did achieve very little, but it bound a lot of resources (night fighters, occupied production slots, lots of tech-people engaged in early E-warfare).

 

The V-1 was strategically the better program: It bound valuable RAF and USAAF assets in southern England.

There was no defense against the V-2, so the effort in fighting it was limited to attacking the launch-site.

In that way, the less advanced V-1 was the better option for Germany at the time.

 

Edited November 1, 2018 by Bremspropeller

[LeLv76_Erkki]

Air might in the form of B-17, B-24, P-47 and P-51 definitely was a way to project Allies' economical power on Germany and force it into a war of attrition in the air. Even if in the end Allies lost more cash/materiel/men, I figure it would have been considerably bloodier to do the same(make Germany spend resources of its own and bleed it dry) on the ground.

[RedKestrel]

2 hours ago, LeLv76_Erkki said:

 

I cannot agree completely. In Europe distances are much, much shorter than in the Pacific or Continental US. For fighting war in Europe, against Europeans, Germans and Soviets didnt need a whole lot of operational range. 400 liter tank was "enough"(cough until it wasnt) for an environment where distances are short, infrastructure and road network developed and airfields and suitable fields are everywhere. For the similar reasons(focus on tactical air force) Soviets and Germans also didnt focus on strategic long range bombers or maritime aircraft.

I'm going to disagree. Even in Europe, the Luftwaffe at least DEFINITELY needed a lot more operational range. It was an issue as far back as 1940 in the Battle of Britain, when their fighters couldn't fight more than a few minutes before heading for home on bomber escort duty. This seriously limited their ability to protect their bombers, and cost them trained crews and airframes at a time when they could not afford it. it can (and has been) argued that the Luftwaffe never recovered properly from their losses in the Battle of Britain, and the short range of their fighters contributed to this.

Later, in their war with the Soviets, the Nazi's were unable to attack enemy production in a significant way after the large scale movement of Soviet industry beyond the Ural mountains. Even the occasional nuisance raid would have disrupted production and logistics. As it was, they could operate with impunity. Given the typically massive soviet losses even in victorious battles, any degradation of their production would have paid large dividends on the Eastern Front for the Germans.

The Soviets get away with having a largely tactical air force because the British and the Americans were bombing Nazi Germany around the clock from 1942-1943 onward. Perhaps the overall impact was debatable, but if the US and UK hadn't been conducting strategic bombing raids on German cities, it would have freed up even more fighters, flak guns, and personnel for fighting on the Eastern Front. This doesn't even take into consideration personnel for firefighting, rebuilding homes and factories. It also doesn't even touch on the large scale civilian deaths caused that would have reduced the available work force and recruitment pool for the armed forces. Simply comparing industrial production to allied losses doesn't tell the whole story  The Soviets could focus on tactical aviation because the strategic aspect was coming from elsewhere in the alliance.

The RAF had issues with range as well - conducting their cross-channel raids in 1941 and 1942, their Spitfires and Hurricanes ran into the same issues as the Germans in 1940. once they crossed the channel, they had limited time and fuel to conduct combat, and their losses were higher because of this.

Even the USAAF had issues with range. When the bombing campaign started, the USAAF lacked a fighter that could accompany its strategic bomber forces as far as they needed. The P-38 had too many issues to work effectively and was phased out as escort fighter, and the P-47 as the main escort fighter was relatively short ranged. Unescorted daylight bomber raids were butchered just beyond the effective range of the P-47s. With escorts, more of these bombers may have returned.

Longer range fighters could penetrate deeper, loiter longer or just engage at combat speeds for longer periods of time. A long loiter time for fighters and attackers is a force multiplier at the strategic level. For example, you can provide air cover for an area longer with fewer fighters, freeing up other fighters for attack, interception, and aggressive patrolling. 

So yes, even in the European air war, operational range was crucial. Its just that it was a shortcoming for basically everyone at various times, so its easy to ignore  missed opportunities. If either side had started the conflict with longer range fighters, things may have been very different. The Luftwaffe may have been able to press home their attacks in the BoB much better, and at least reduce their losses even if they still lost the campaign. The Luftwaffe may have been able to attack and disrupt Soviet industry more effectively. 

On the allied side, the USAAF may have been able to conduct daylight bombing raids over the heart of Germany with full fighter escort much earlier in the war, decreasing their bomber losses and increasing the losses to the Luftwaffe. The RAF may have been able to conduct more aggressive and conclusive cross-channel raids over France in 1941-1942.

Would any of this be enough to change the outcome of the war? Probably not. But it certainly could have shortened or prolonged the war.

[LeLv76_Erkki]

I do agree with what you say. Yes, in BoB range as issue. But 109 did not have serious range issues in mainland Europe nor with drop tanks... That arrived of course too late in the BoB. I personally dont think Luftwaffe could have won BoB anyway. Luftwaffe did have a long range fighter too, but they did not know how bad it would fare until the war begun and it was too late in BoB. Allies and even Japanese could learn from early war and not repeat the mistake of Bf 110, while the Luftwaffe pretty much lost the initiative in the air 1940 already and no longer even needed a plane like P-51. Imho. For a bombing campaign in East? Luftwaffe never had the planes to do it, and the infrastructure and logistics were huge issue in the East.

 

I specifically talked about war in mainland Europe because thats what they must have been thinking when designing the 109. Soviet fighters had no more range - they didnt need it. Tactical planes are sufficient for tactical use.

 

edit: I guess what I want to say is that short range was not such a great sin. They couldnt know they would be fighting over the Channel in no time or that their long range fighters piloted by the cream of the Luftwaffe would end in disaster. What I think was worse is that they didnt tackle the recognized shortcomings quick enough and thanks to also ol' Willy the development of another, longer legged and more general purpose fighter took more time than it should have.

Edited November 1, 2018 by LeLv76_Erkki

[Bremspropeller]

That's a great little essay, RK!

 

Mind that Germany did actually have longer range fighters in 1940: Both the He 100 and te Fw 187 had a lot more range than the 109 and the Fw 187 absolutely outclassed the 110 and was better than the 109 in most respects.

The RLM focused too much on high production rates by designs taylored towards mass-production (*cough* Bf 109). They had better airframes available but didn't chose to implement them into production - they wee too fat, dumb and happy thinking the war would be won in a year or two.

They set sail for fail just there and then.

 

People tend to forget that strategical airplanes were one integral part of breaking the U-Boat force's back.

A B-24 is more than just a bomber that pulverizes a city.

 

The Luftwaffe lacked the hardware to reach out over the ocean. What they had didn't quite cut it - even though the airplanes they employed (e.g. Fw 200 and Ju 290) were awesome in their own right.

Edited November 1, 2018 by Bremspropeller

[RedKestrel]

Just now, Bremspropeller said:

That's a great little essay, RK!

 

Mind that Germany did actually have longer range fighters in 1940: Both the He 100 and te Fw 187 had a lot more range than the 109 and the Fw 187 absolutely outclassed the 110 and was better than the 109 in most respects.

The RLM focused too much on high production rates by designs taylored towards mass-production (*cough* Bf 109). They had better airframes available but didn't chose to implement them into production - they wee too fat, dumb and happy thinking the war would be won in a year or two.

They set sail for fail just there and then.

I was really only talking about production fighters, yeah. You're right - I think all sides were complacent in their thinking on this issue. The Germans can perhaps be forgiven for focusing on aircraft already in production - retooling entire factories, supply chains and retraining air forces to integrate new designs is costly in time, money and personnel, and when their industrial capacity was already smaller than what was really needed to conduct the wars they were fighting, switching to those better fighters mid-war may have done more harm than good. But it still has to be said that they made a deliberate choice(perhaps for very good reasons) in their focus on short-range light tactical fighters, and that choice cost them dearly.

 

[Bremspropeller]

That excuse has been brought up a lot. Granted, it makes sense economically.

One has to remember, though, that german production ramped up after BoB and new, relatively proven concepts (like the He 100 and Fw 187) could have been implemented in the growth.

 

Instead, they proceeded with projects like the Me 210, where they bought a pig in a poke. And boy, what a pig it was...

 

It's hard to put a "reasonabe" lable on RLM procurement policies.

[ZachariasX]

31 minutes ago, RedKestrel said:

But it still has to be said that they made a deliberate choice(perhaps for very good reasons) in their focus on short-range light tactical fighters, and that choice cost them dearly.

I tend to disagree with that. If they could have had a longer range, they more than happily has opted for that. The entire idea with the Amerika bomber was based on extreme range. The problem was they had two very capable but short range fighters and their designers had no idea how to make range possible.

 

The British also deemed range and performance to be mutually exclusive. Also they were blinded by one very successful design. And what cannot be, that will not be produced. It took sn American to just hand them a plane that, lo and behold, had the range.

 

The Germans on the other hand were in a more dire situation. As I wrote in another thread, they were more limited by the available fuels, putting another burden on the design requirements. Either they used high performance fuel that cost them mileage, or they used more efficient fuel that costthem performance.

 

Having good fuel is actually key to the Mustang, besides the „laminar wings“ (trust me, as soon as a mechanic walked on those wings to stow some ammo, theyare not „laminar“ anymore). It made possible that the Mustang actually ran with a same engine concept as todays cars: small displacement, high turbocharging. It allowed the Mustang to fly at a very economical setting, as the smaller engine is more efficient at partial load. In turn, a great supercharger gave it almost the power of a much larger engine when situation demanded that. The Mustang cannot do all that at 87 octane. It can just cruise far with that. With C3, it wouldn‘t have the range as that fuel burns less efficient.

 

It is ridiculous that people fail to understand that. It‘s not the wings, it‘s not the radiator. It is those and much more.

 

The Mustang truly is an amalgam of the best technology could offer at that time. Be it aerodynamics, be it fuel technology, be it supercharger technology. It is a truly remarkable aircraft. Other aircraft got higher performance by putting in more of the same. Not the Mustang.

Edited November 1, 2018 by ZachariasX

[Bremspropeller]

34 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

The problem was they had two very capable but short range fighters and their designers had no idea how to make range possible.

 

I think that's too simply put. Germany did just not have a history of strategical operations. They had the Ostasiengeschwader for a short time, but that was about as strategic as it gets.

That school of thought died in the trenches of WW1.

The most lacking field was probably engine technology. I don't see an engine comparable with the R2800 on the german side (though there were some potential runners) in 1940. The Double Wasp powered three different awesome wartime fighter-designs with decent range and performance and additionally two awesome late/ post war hi-performance designs (one being a twin).

 

Also, the whole idea of the Amerikabomber was a joke. You'd have lost more bombers on the way across the pond than during actual combat. The Allies had weather-stations, and a pretty tight net of airfields along the track and beyond. A shot in the tank was going to mean two things: become a POW in America or die swimming across the Atlantic.

There were no procedures in place and although Germany was among the leading nations (in terms of experience) in transoceanic flight, an actual war effort was an order of magnitude beyond the capabilities of the Luftwaffe. They didn't have the training-pipeline to make operations as complicated (or worse) than flying B-29s to Japan happen.

Edited November 1, 2018 by Bremspropeller

[EAF19_Marsh]

The Luftwaff lost in the same way that Germany lost: too few resources, poor management, picking a simultaneous fight with major powers and having no clear idea how to win.

 

Arguing about small diferences in range and performance is Top Trumps. A flight sim will never model this with accuracy (as it cannot), the sim participants - like the historical aircrew - have to do the best that they can with the equipment available.

 

None of it really reflects history.

[Aap]

1 hour ago, Bremspropeller said:

the Fw 187 absolutely outclassed the 110 and was better than the 109 in most respects

 

How sure are you about that? Looking at specs, it was inferior to 109 as a fighter in all respects other than range and it cost twice as much. Based on the specs it did not really outclass Bf110 either, though I understand that it was more nimble and in that sense probably better in a fighter-vs-fighter setting, but still inferior to single engine fighters in that role.

 

[Ehret]

41 minutes ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

The Luftwaff lost in the same way that Germany lost: too few resources, poor management, picking a simultaneous fight with major powers and having no clear idea how to win.

 

It was much worse... they hadn't any non-ridiculous ideas what would constitute "a win". If the common German people would know what the H. and Co were planning the latter would be hang in 5 minutes, flat.

Edited November 1, 2018 by Ehret

[Bremspropeller]

41 minutes ago, II./JG77_Kemp said:

 

How sure are you about that? Looking at specs, it was inferior to 109 as a fighter in all respects other than range and it cost twice as much. Based on the specs it did not really outclass Bf110 either, though I understand that it was more nimble and in that sense probably better in a fighter-vs-fighter setting, but still inferior to single engine fighters in that role.

 

 

The 187 had comparable performance on signifigantly less powerful engines (Jumo 210G) than the 109 (DB601) in service at the time.

On the same motor (Jumo 210D), the 187 was 35-40kph faster at low level than the 109B.

 

MTOW of the A-0 in Platzschutz misions was less than 4900kg - not too much heavier than a Fw 190A at MTOW.

 

Edited November 1, 2018 by Bremspropeller

[EAF19_Marsh]

1 hour ago, Ehret said:

 

It was much worse... they hadn't any non-ridiculous ideas what would constitute "a win". If the common German people would know what the H. and Co were planning the latter would be hang in 5 minutes, flat.

 

Sadly not true.

[ZachariasX]

2 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

I think that's too simply put. Germany did just not have a history of strategical operations.

I didn't mean to take the argument that far. What I meant to say is that when you asked a designer whether it is possible to make a high performance piston engine fighter that has 1000 km range, the answer would be "NO". Same as Churchill asked for such a plane that would escort bombers to Berlin, he was given that answer. Churchills retort "Well, that closes a great many doors." became legendary.

 

They surely tried to extend the range somewhat, but sitting down instead and coming up with something new, that they didn't. Sydney Camm made his version of that with the Typhoon and then with the Tempest. The Typhoon he made with wings that could house huge fuel tanks. The Sabre engine gave an impressive cruise speed. Endurance and speed combined doubled the range of the aircraft over previous designs. In the Tempest, he stowed the fuel in an even larger fuselage, that combined with an even greater cruise speed due to the thin wings plus the wing tanks even trippled the range of what was deemed possible at the time Chuchill was asking for longer range.

 

The Germans really only thought in twin engine layout for long range and single engine fighters that had short range. It just was this way. The America bomber is just a piece of brain gymnastics to come up with solutions for the basically impossible (lest practical). There, they at least dared to think. But for bread an butter aircraft, it had to be as small as possible with an engine as big as possible. What was deemed practical differed slightly between individual designers, but in their own way, the came up with practical designs for sure.

 

The Germans were were not as lucky as the British and were lacking someone showing them in the flesh what they themselves deemed was not possible. And when the Germans got a hold of Mustangs, they wouldn't copy it. By that time, that kind of range became irrelevant plus the unavailability of the fuel to make it happen on a broader scale put an end to such efforts anyway.

 

1 hour ago, Ehret said:

If the common German people would know what the H. and Co were planning the latter would be hang in 5 minutes, flat.

All they would have needed to do was reading the one book they were NOT burning while screaming those chants that were exactly about what a certain H. was planning. How sweet of them taking that one book as a Bible and then claiming after a decade "not having read it" while starting a world war precisely about what is written in there.

 

Edit: bloody merge function^^

Edited November 1, 2018 by ZachariasX

[Bremspropeller]

The He 100 did have a range of roughly 1000km on internal gas - it was possible and achievable, but after the cancellation of this design, those kinds of ranges weren't reached 'till the Ta 152 came along.

 

I think ze Germans also had to work with their plan-economy, which robbed designers of chances to prove their designs objectively. If there was a design that overthrew the general plan, it wasn't going to happen in any way, shape or form.

Influential people - like Col. Kelsey in the US - were missing. Also, narrowmindedness and pilotical woes killed some very interesting designs early on.

 

 

Edited November 1, 2018 by Bremspropeller

[ZachariasX]

The He-100 is indeed an interesting proposition. Very unconventional design that paid off on terms of performance. But it seems  even the Zero is a tank compared to that delicate Heinkel.

 

Ans yes, putting stupid criminals in charge always puts you on the losing end in the long run. Back then and today.

[Bremspropeller]

The evaporation-cooling was a bit too racey - the Fw 187 employed a similar (but different) system for it''s V6 airframe and reached just about 400mph in early 1939 with DB600 engines.

 

The He 100D-1, though, had conventional cooling and could still attain 400mph in a fighter-configuration. Not too bad in my book - especially in 1940.

[JtD]

The design of the Fw190 wasn't necessarily that short legged. The G series long range fighter bombers achieved endurances of more than 4 hours and ranges of near 2000km.

 

The Fw190A-8 carried ~500kg of fuel internally. A a Bf109 or a Spitfire ~300, the Tempest ~550 and the P-51 ~700, to put it into perspective.

 

What you guys are missing in your discussion about early war German aircraft design is that in this phase first priority 1938-1942 was the Ju88, second priority was the Ju88 and third was the Ju88. Then, maybe, came other designs. There are reasons that a twin bomber/multirole aircraft was the most produced German aircraft in the first half of the war.

[ZachariasX]

1 hour ago, JtD said:

What you guys are missing in your discussion about early war German aircraft design is that in this phase first priority 1938-1942 was the Ju88, second priority was the Ju88 and third was the Ju88. Then, maybe, came other designs. There are reasons that a twin bomber/multirole aircraft was the most produced German aircraft in the first half of the war.

Fair point. 

 

But I really wouldn‘t want to put those JaboRei makeshift improvisations in the league of the Mustang. The JaboRei were a step down in terms of qualities as a fighter, down to the point where the Germans themself put them as ground attackers and not as long range fighters.

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

 As the thread soon derails to how besserwissers would have done in Germany and politics added into the mix, I leave my input here. I will fly them all. P-47D has a sweet spot for me, always has. A big brute with a lot of firepower and not so bad performance. P-38 is a graceful plane, plane that fared very well in the Pacific having highest scoring US aces like Bong and McGuire. P-51D. Well goes without saying. Cadillac of the skies. Tempest. Predecessor to Sea Fury, an all time favorite. Fast, powerful and very good performance with speed. Looks great too! Will also fly the German additions, the ones Talon_ wants to be hampered to hell and back because Germans were complete idiots and lost the war  

[ZachariasX]

If you are happy with just personal taste about aircraft, fine. I gave reason why I think the Mustang was *the* „American iron“ no matter how beautiful or interesting the other types are. If you think that is bbesserwisser, fine. I prefer besserwisser to pet plane feuds. And yes, I‘m looking forward for all coming aircraft, as all of them have some merit as well as being interesting.

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

With besserwisser remark I meant how the thread derails into a yet another how Germany sucked etc. fest rather than discussing the OP: American Iron. 

[ZachariasX]

There are (too) many threads about how Germany sucked and there is no need for another one indeed. I had hoped that I made it clear how special that one American iron is, as *everybody* sucked that that, hence also Churchills remark. If I came across in another way, my bad.

[Aap]

I have to say that it does not sound very convincing, though, that German (or British) designers had no idea how to make range possible. 

There was already a single engine fighter with the range of 3000 km created in Japan. With all the innovative people that worked in aviation at the time, if RLM had issued a need or competition for a fighter, with "1000 km range and capable of doing x, y and z", these innovative people would not have come up with feasible ideas? I lean on that side that longer range was not high-enough priority for Luftwaffe rather than designers or engineers thinking that it was not possible.

Edited November 2, 2018 by II./JG77_Kemp

[ZachariasX]

36 minutes ago, II./JG77_Kemp said:

So I lean on that side that longer range was not high-enough priority for Luftwaffe rather than designers or engineers thinking that it was not possible.

They couldn't loiter over London in the 40s. They had to take fuel from the very same deliveries brought to Tunesia that the fighters had to fly escort for. Just as examples. It cost them dearly only having twin engine fighters with long legs. So I'm not certain what kind of real world problems it would take to make something a priority in the GL.

 

it is also not an issue making a plane to fly far. But can you make that while it dies the same thing than one that doesn't fly far? The Zero was IMHO indeed fantastic design. It had a huge range and the performance. I think of it as the Mustang of 1940. The problem with it was that it didn't scale well in terms of performance to meet leter, more powerful adversaries.

[Talon_]

3 hours ago, LLv34_Flanker said:

the ones Talon_ wants to be hampered to hell and back

 

I am just looking for realistic scenarios in my historical flight simulator

[BlitzPig_EL]

1 hour ago, ZachariasX said:

The Zero was IMHO indeed fantastic design. It had a huge range and the performance. I think of it as the Mustang of 1940.

 

So very true.  Many of my countrymen dismiss the A6M as a cheap, fragile, poorly made "paper airplane".  Nothing could be further from the truth.  Mitsubishi gave the Imperial Japanese Navy exactly what they asked for, a plane with great range, high maneuverability, good rate of climb, cannon armament, and did it with just 900 to 1000bhp.  It was a brilliant design for it's time.  The same is true of the German designs, they gave the Luftwaffe what they asked for.

 

The operational problems with them was not with the manufacturers, or their designs.  The problems lay at the feet of the military command structures who tendered the specifications in the first place.  Too narrowly focused and based in large part in belief of their own propaganda and expectations of quick victory.

Edited November 2, 2018 by BlitzPig_EL

[JtD]

3 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

They couldn't loiter over London in the 40s.

 

Which became an issue in 1940. The manual I have for the Bf109E-7 drop tank installation is dated September 1940. Which gives the aircraft more than 3 hours in the air. This way it could operate from Paris and still have time to loiter over London.

 

When the military encountered new challenges, the engineers found solutions. In Germany just like elsewhere.

[MiloMorai]

External tanks were used during the SCW and could have been in use from the start of the BoB.

[ZachariasX]

1 hour ago, JtD said:

 

Which became an issue in 1940. The manual I have for the Bf109E-7 drop tank installation is dated September 1940. Which gives the aircraft more than 3 hours in the air. This way it could operate from Paris and still have time to loiter over London.

 

When the military encountered new challenges, the engineers found solutions. In Germany just like elsewhere.

Slightly late though. What is worse, it was not a lasting solution (on the contrary), it left the shipping landes over the Med open and the British had almost free reign there, destryoing any hopes of a permanent German base in Africa. Also those tanks being hastyly patched together plywood cans, they tended to become unglued and pilots didn't like that fire hazard under their aircraft. But by all means, these would all have been solvable issues, if they had been a priority. But that is not my point. My point  is this particular iron, the P-51 did what was deemed "impossible". And remained impossible for any 109, no matter how many tanks you put on there.

[Bremspropeller]

10 hours ago, JtD said:

The design of the Fw190 wasn't necessarily that short legged. The G series long range fighter bombers achieved endurances of more than 4 hours and ranges of near 2000km.

 

They even had the ability to squeeze in more gas (into the wings), but wouldn't - for no given reson.

 

1 hour ago, JtD said:

Which became an issue in 1940. The manual I have for the Bf109E-7 drop tank installation is dated September 1940. Which gives the aircraft more than 3 hours in the air. This way it could operate from Paris and still have time to loiter over London.

 

Endurance is one thing. Trouble is, the tank increses drag and the 109's cruise wasn't that fast to begin with.

The 3hrs-figure is not too realistic under combat conditions  - especially when escorting quick'ish bombers.