Not an allied
fighter,but interesting to note, I remember reading accounts of US P51 pilots at the end stages of the war coming across FW-ta152 machines with no chance of catching them, the 152 just sped away from them without much trouble all.
She was different to the FW190, with sleeker fuselage,longer narrower wings, a real high altitude speed machine..
2000+HP,
Fuel injected,
supercharged,
MW50- methanol/water injection for low alt. performance
GM1-Nitrous Oxide injection for High alt. performance, although both systems could be employed at the same time.
Top speed @SL 350mph/560kmh, @41,000Ft 472mph/755kmh.

FW ta152

On the subject of counter rotating props,yes Volvo do have CR props on the same stem,but they now position the props at the front of the leg which makes it much more efficient.Volvo IPS
Marine outboard manufactures also offer singleCR props when ordering a twin engine setup.

quote:

Originally posted by Woodjack:
Not an allied
fighter,but interesting to note, I remember reading accounts of US P51 pilots at the end stages of the war coming across FW-ta152 machines with no chance of catching them, the 152 just sped away from them without much trouble all.
She was different to the FW190, with sleeker fuselage,longer narrower wings, a real high altitude speed machine..
2000+HP,
Fuel injected,
supercharged,
MW50- methanol/water injection for low alt. performance
GM1-Nitrous Oxide injection for High alt. performance, although both systems could be employed at the same time.
Top speed @SL 350mph/560kmh, @41,000Ft 472mph/755kph.

FW ta152

On the subject of counter rotating props,yes Volvo do have CR props on the same stem,but they now position the props at the front of the leg which makes it much more efficient.Volvo IPS
Marine outboard manufactures also offer singleCR props when ordering a twin engine setup.

I had never heard of the Ta152 so did a bit of research. I'll share some of what I found. Seems this was a 'dream' aircraft and little more if you can believe what you read. Also, the incident with the four P51's is referenced and seems this was a non-event. I have heard of similar events ad been told of them by pilots who were there but the encounters were with the P51 and the Me262 jet fighter, not another piston variant.
Quote:
"The Focke-Wulf Ta 152 was a World War II Luftwaffe high-altitude interceptor fighter. It was made in two versions—the Ta 152 H Höhenjäger and the Ta 152 C designed for slightly lower altitude operations using a different engine. The Ta 152 was a development of the Focke-Wulf Fw 190 aircraft, but the prefix was changed from 'Fw' to 'Ta' in honor of Kurt Tank who headed the design team. The first Ta 152 entered service with the Luftwaffe in October 1944, and only 67 production aircraft were delivered. This was too late in the war to allow the Ta 152 to have an impact on the war effort.
The Ta 152 H boasted excellent high-altitude performance, using a Jumo 213 E engine (a high-altitude version of the Jumo 213 A/C used in the FW 190 D), a 2-stage, 2-speed supercharger and the MW 50 methanol-water mixture engine boost system. The engine also included a GM-1 Nitrous oxide injection system for high altitudes and the aircraft had an increased wingspan compared to the previous Fw 190 design, as a further accommodation towards better high-altitude performance. The cockpit of the Ta 152 H was also moved back slightly to improve centre of gravity and balance issues.
Kurt Tank wanted to use the Daimler-Benz DB 603 engine in the Ta 152, as it offered better high altitude performance and also a greater potential for developments. However, this engine had been used in the Fw 190 B/C with many problems, so the engine was considered too difficult to implement in the Ta 152 design by Reichsluftfahrtministerium (German Air Ministry) officials. In the end the Ta 152 C was equipped with the Daimler-Benz engine, but it was so late in development that only a couple of planes were built before the war ended.
Armament
The H-model had a heavy armament, to allow it to deal with the massive allied bomber formations. The armament consisted of a MK 108 30 mm cannon firing through the propeller hub, and two MG 151/20 20 mm cannons located in the wing roots.
The C-model was designed to operate at lower altitudes than the H-model, and had an even heavier armament consisting of one MK 108 30 mm cannon firing through the propeller hub, and four MG 151/20 20 mm cannons. Two of the 20 mm cannons were mounted above the engine (in the engine cowling), and the other two in the wing roots. The Ta 152 C could destroy even the heaviest enemy bombers with a short burst, but the added weight of the armament affected speed and turn rates negatively.
Performance
The Ta 152H was among the fastest piston-engined fighters of the war, capable of speeds up to 755 km/h (472 mph) at 13,500 m (41,000 feet, using the GM-1 boost) and 560 km/h (350 mph) at sea level (using the MW-50 boost). To help it attain this speed it used the MW 50 water-methanol injection system mainly for lower altitudes (up to about 10,000 m or 32,800 ft) and the GM-1 nitrous oxide injection system for higher altitudes, although both systems could be engaged at the same time. The Ta 152 was one of the first aircraft specifically designed to employ a nitrous oxide power boost system, which is used today in high-performance street racing cars.
In late 1944 Kurt Tank claimed that, while flying a Ta 152H, he was bounced by four P-51 Mustangs during a flight to a meeting at the Focke-Wulf plant in Cottbus. He stated his plane had no ammunition on board, so he had no means of fighting the enemy. He claimed to have made his escape by engaging the MW 50 boost, opening the throttle wide to attain the aforementioned 755 km/h (472 mph) velocity to escape the pursuing American fighters, and left the four Mustangs floundering behind him. There is no evidence whatsoever to support this account, there is no record of any such encounter in Allied records and Tank's unsupported word remains the only suggestion that it ever took place.
The reliability record of the Ta 152 is poor. It was not afforded the time to work out all the little quirks and errors plaguing all new designs and of the 67 production aircraft delivered most were eventually grounded due to mechanical problems. These problems proved impossible to rectify given the situation in Germany towards the end of the war, and only two Ta 152 C remained operational when Germany surrendered. All the H-models had been grounded due to engine problems. Reportedly, of those Ta 152H that flew, most were used in a close-support role and as escorts protecting the Me 262 airfields while the vulnerable jets took off and landed. If true, this was not the role for which they had been intended. Again, there is no evidence that Ta-152H aircraft were ever encountered by Allied aircraft attacking German airfields.
Production
The total number of Ta 152 production is not well known but it should be ~150 aircraft of all types including prototypes. Of the approximately 150 Ta 152 H's produced, more than half were destroyed by the allies before they could be delivered to the air force. Only a couple of Ta 152 Cs were produced before the production facilities were overrun."
So, if we can believe this data, this is another example of 'too little, too late' to have had a real effect on the outcome of the war. I also found where the Brits took some of the captured Ta152's and did extensive testing with them - wonder what ever became of these A/C????

quote:

In late 1944 Kurt Tank claimed that, while flying a Ta 152H, he was bounced by four P-51 Mustangs during a flight to a meeting at the Focke-Wulf plant in Cottbus. He stated his plane had no ammunition on board, so he had no means of fighting the enemy. He claimed to have made his escape by engaging the MW 50 boost, opening the throttle wide to attain the aforementioned 755 km/h (472 mph) velocity to escape the pursuing American fighters, and left the four Mustangs floundering behind him.

"Ja, I hitten zee boost und I left der Mushtanks in mein dust, und aferwards had lunch wit mein fraulein, Morgan Fairchild. (Whom I've seen naked....)

Maybe you should order extra of mein planes, ja?

quote:

Originally posted by medium:
I guess this is more of a question than comment. In reading over the planes mention I didn't see:
Hawker Tempest
Hawker Typhoon
P-61 Black Widow (night fighter)
De Havilland Mosquito

No one jumped in so I'll tell what little I know. The Typhoon was an outstanding attack aircraft with reasonable air-to-air capabilities but lacked somewhat at high altitudes. The Tempest was an attempt (successful but too late to compete with jets) to improve the high altitude performance of the Typhoon by adding an elipitcal wing a lot like the one on the Spitfire. That plus a 2400 hp Saber engine. The prototype Tempests flew in early 1945 so you can see they were too late to compete with jets like the Glouster Meteor. They had a lot of use in the Empire's third world forces like India and Pakistan. Much like the Avenger in Viet Nam combat.

The Mosquito was a fighter-bomber that owed its speed to the light weight of its all-wood construction. It was a fine airplane and capable of high speed plus high forward firepower but it came apart pretty easy if hit by ground fire.

The P-61 was a transitional plane that did things OK but newer planes passed it up pronto-lito. The jet-powered bomber made it obsolete before it had a real chance after WWII.

Have any of you guys ever looked at the Napier Sabre engine and its dual horizontally opposed configuration with two crankshafts and sleeve valves? whew

I think I looked at every entry and did not see ONE single mention of The Curtiss P-40. I think you will find it was in production from 1939 thru Dec 1944 with a production of 15,000+. It was used in every theatre and in the service of 28 nations. Don't know how good it was but it must have been more than adequate to have been produced for that long and to have been made in that quantity and used by that many nations. I have never flown anything larger than a 1939 Cessna Airmaster so am definitely no authority on warplanes.

I think the P-40 was a wonderful airplane. Using it's strong points it was more than a match for it's South Pacific counterparts.
As with most Allison engined airplanes though it struggled after about 10,000-15,000 ft. as the basic Allison was not very capable of being modified for higher altitude. The basic supercharger was very inefficient.
In China it was a very formidable weapon.

Wasn't so hot of a plane, but how about the Brewster Buffalo?

Joe

Gee, nobody have anything to say about the Brewster?

The Finns or someone up there loved them. I think I read somewhere where their top scoring pilot, when they got some Spits went back to his Buff. Go figure.
I disagree about the P-40 though. A very maneuverable and tough airplane and with the 6-.50's good firepower.
A good read if you haven't is "Into the Teeth of the Tiger" by Donald Lopez. In the CBA theater he preferred the P-40 over the P-51 B's and C's they were getting.

Don

quote:

Originally posted by TrapperP:

quote:

Originally posted by Pete E:
Trapper,



When you point out the problems with the Spitfire, you need to specify which model you were talking about...For instance early models were armed with .303's but later models had brownings and/or 20mm cannon depending on the model.

quote:

Its only claim to fame was saving the country during the battle of Britain

If thats its only claim to fame, its good enough for me! It was probably the first and finest pure air superiority fighter of its day...that was both its strength and its weakenss, but it did the job it was intended to do brilliantly, especially as it was modified as the war went on...

Some very good footage appears in the link below:

Spitfire

Regards,

Pete

Thnks for the input and the website - Truly remarable footage there! I certainly did not intend to slight the Spitfire, quite the contary - but the Spit had problems just as I mentioned and as witnessed by your refference to attempts to further refine and develop the A/C to over come them.
Quote: "On the 20th February 1948, almost twelve years from the prototype's first flight, the last production Spitfire (VN496 an F Mk 24) left the production line. Some 22,759 Spitfire's and Seafire's were built over a 10 year production run during which time Reginald Mitchell's classic design evolved almost beyond recognition into 24 different marks."
And don't forget the Brits were sending pilots up in Spits that had less than twenty hours in type to take on the best the Luftwaffe had. And now, having said that, let me say I sure would not have liked to have been a Stuka driver in the skies over London in 1940!
Most of what first hand info I possess re the Spitfire came from a gentleman named Maurice Freedman. He was our rep from RollsRoyce when we put the RB22 engines in service and the tales this man could tell.
My very favorite subject to hear him speak to was the Spitfire K5054 and the Supermarine attmpts at the absolute speed record. They had put a lid from a Thermos tin atop the glycol header tank and then put frozen chunks of glycol in the tank to keep the temps down as much as possible during the attmpt, fared everything to match so as to have the smotthest skin surface possible, etc. And then he would grow quite and say the last time he saw it, it had been repainted, armed and was defending the country. Wonder what ever became of the airframe as he claimed not to know. I find that the only only 'surviving piece' of K5054 appears to have been a wing bolt that an engineer kept and re-manufactured into a sheet metal workers hammer head. This valuable piece of aviation history is now in the custody of Solent Sky, Southampton, and can be seen on display at the Spitfire Exhibition at the Science Museum in Kensington, London.



Quite an impressive sight.
And again, I do not intend to slight the Spitfire in any way. As far as I know, the Spitfire was the worlds only fighter aircraft in series production both before, during and after the second world war, and served with many of the worlds airforces well into the 1960's!

Again, let me say this is a great thread, one I have enjoyed immensely. Would it not be great to hold a get-together and allow each to tell their own tales of flying, experiences with aircraft and the places they have been? I sat in a lounge in Anchorage one night and listened to two bush pilots speak to the subject for several hours and have never laughed so hard in my life. Oh, the tales they could tell!
Must run for now. Kick the tires and light the fires - I'll fly with you.

-------------------

Hi TrapperP and all.

Noticed a few "quotes" and a posted image that have come directly from my website:

http://www.k5054.com

Please make the effort to acknowledge sources of information as it makes the people who spend their free time building these types of free information websites feel happier (= ME)

See that "Copyright 2005" text under the spit? Would be nice to get some traffic back in return for your use of my quotes and images...

LOL

webmaster www.k5054.com

K5054 - The supermarine Spitfire Prototype

quote:

Originally posted by k5054 webmaster:

quote:

Originally posted by TrapperP:

quote:

Originally posted by Pete E:
Trapper,



When you point out the problems with the Spitfire, you need to specify which model you were talking about...For instance early models were armed with .303's but later models had brownings and/or 20mm cannon depending on the model.

quote:

Its only claim to fame was saving the country during the battle of Britain

If thats its only claim to fame, its good enough for me! It was probably the first and finest pure air superiority fighter of its day...that was both its strength and its weakenss, but it did the job it was intended to do brilliantly, especially as it was modified as the war went on...

Some very good footage appears in the link below:

Spitfire

Regards,

Pete

Thnks for the input and the website - Truly remarable footage there! I certainly did not intend to slight the Spitfire, quite the contary - but the Spit had problems just as I mentioned and as witnessed by your refference to attempts to further refine and develop the A/C to over come them.
Quote: "On the 20th February 1948, almost twelve years from the prototype's first flight, the last production Spitfire (VN496 an F Mk 24) left the production line. Some 22,759 Spitfire's and Seafire's were built over a 10 year production run during which time Reginald Mitchell's classic design evolved almost beyond recognition into 24 different marks."
And don't forget the Brits were sending pilots up in Spits that had less than twenty hours in type to take on the best the Luftwaffe had. And now, having said that, let me say I sure would not have liked to have been a Stuka driver in the skies over London in 1940!
Most of what first hand info I possess re the Spitfire came from a gentleman named Maurice Freedman. He was our rep from RollsRoyce when we put the RB22 engines in service and the tales this man could tell.
My very favorite subject to hear him speak to was the Spitfire K5054 and the Supermarine attmpts at the absolute speed record. They had put a lid from a Thermos tin atop the glycol header tank and then put frozen chunks of glycol in the tank to keep the temps down as much as possible during the attmpt, fared everything to match so as to have the smotthest skin surface possible, etc. And then he would grow quite and say the last time he saw it, it had been repainted, armed and was defending the country. Wonder what ever became of the airframe as he claimed not to know. I find that the only only 'surviving piece' of K5054 appears to have been a wing bolt that an engineer kept and re-manufactured into a sheet metal workers hammer head. This valuable piece of aviation history is now in the custody of Solent Sky, Southampton, and can be seen on display at the Spitfire Exhibition at the Science Museum in Kensington, London.



Quite an impressive sight.
And again, I do not intend to slight the Spitfire in any way. As far as I know, the Spitfire was the worlds only fighter aircraft in series production both before, during and after the second world war, and served with many of the worlds airforces well into the 1960's!

Again, let me say this is a great thread, one I have enjoyed immensely. Would it not be great to hold a get-together and allow each to tell their own tales of flying, experiences with aircraft and the places they have been? I sat in a lounge in Anchorage one night and listened to two bush pilots speak to the subject for several hours and have never laughed so hard in my life. Oh, the tales they could tell!
Must run for now. Kick the tires and light the fires - I'll fly with you.

-------------------

Hi TrapperP and all.

Noticed a few "quotes" and a posted image that have come directly from my website:

http://www.k5054.com

Please make the effort to acknowledge sources of information as it makes the people who spend their free time building these types of free information websites feel happier (= ME)

See that "Copyright 2005" text under the spit? Would be nice to get some traffic back in return for your use of my quotes and images...

LOL

webmaster www.k5054.com

K5054 - The supermarine Spitfire Prototype

I've gone back to the original post and deleted with the following comments:

"I'll pull down the post. I certainly had no intention of stepping on anyones toes or poo-pooing in someones Post Toasties.
I assumed anything posted out was public domain and if not, then I apologize for my error.
My quotes offered up from the gentleman working with Rolls re the K5054 effort were first hand and mine alone first hand and mine alone - but I will remove the entire post if that will suffice."

Good luck with your website.

TrapperP

quote:

See that "Copyright 2005" text under the spit? Would be nice to get some traffic back in return for your use of my quotes and images...

Right under a Spitfire picture from the public domain.

And what's with the tail-skid anyway??

I watched a special just the other day, where they interviewed British and German fighter pilots from the B.O.B.
The English lads stated that they were just dam lucky that their planes were so easy to learn to fly, where as the 109 required alot more experience and skill, which the battle hardened/experienced germans already had from other campaigns. He more or less made out that if the brtish planes had been more of a bitch like the me109, they would have been far up shitcreek without a paddle.

quote:

Originally posted by JAL:
And what's with the tail-skid anyway??

Tail Wheels are pretty unecessary on grass airfields. They have such a small contact point they can drag in the mud worse than a skid. Many RAF fighter squadrons were dispersed thoughout the countryside without improved runways.

If you look at that pic, I believe it has a tailwheel that has a fairing on it. Here is a pic of a non-flying repro instigated by one of the original test pilots, I think he'd be a little more accurate than someone making a CG montage of one.


Here is a link to a pic of the original, I think the fairing was not on the original at all:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/alemarinel/Spitfire/K5054_tarmac.jpg

it is a big pic which is why I'm only putting the link up.

About tail wheels etc.

The Vought F4U Corsair used the main gear for diving brakes. However the aerodynamic forces were too great to extend the tail wheel a dive. It had a separate contol to extend just the main gear for diving. Sounds like another good reason to not have a tail wheel if you can avoid it.

Oh don’t give me a P39
With the engine that’s mounted Behind
It will tumble and roll
And dig a big Hole!
Oh don’t give me a P39!

So they gave us P40's which were a whole world better than the gladiators.
For the invasion of Italy they gave us A36's (early dive bomber variant of the P51) and then in 1944 gave us the abominable Typhoon.

44 (Rhodesia) Squadron lost 5 typhoons to engine failure or carbon monoxide leaks for every one lost to enemy action. The Sabre engine had a life of only 25 hrs between overhauls! (provided you didn’t use emergency boost or full throttle or look at it sideways.

If I'd to choose it would be a Mosquito - wooden wonder - reminds me of a fine Brit double in 450/400

"In 1940 I could at least fly as far as Glasgow in most of my aircraft, but not now! It makes me furious when I see the Mosquito. I turn green and yellow with envy.

The British, who can afford aluminium better than we can, knock together a beautiful wooden aircraft that every piano factory over there is building, and they give it a speed which they have now increased yet again. What do you make of that?"

— Hermann Göring, January 1943,

...see her fly:

Mosquito fly

Watched an episode recently on the "History Channel" re the Spitfire and the Battle of Britain; couple of the old pilots that participated said some things that deeply impressed me.
First, one named Bob Doe: "Ah, the 'Spitfire' - It wasn't the best but it was all we had!"
And stop and consider this one:
"Some ships look as though they were meant to sail, the Spitlire looked like it was meant to fly! And of all the planes I ever flew, the Spitfire was the only one I truly loved."
"Bam" Bamberger, RAF, Spitfire Pilot

How could I add to such statements coming from such men?

quote:

Originally posted by Ganyana:
Oh don’t give me a P39
With the engine that’s mounted Behind
It will tumble and roll
And dig a big Hole!
Oh don’t give me a P39!

So they gave us P40's which were a whole world better than the gladiators.
For the invasion of Italy they gave us A36's (early dive bomber variant of the P51) and then in 1944 gave us the abominable Typhoon.

44 (Rhodesia) Squadron lost 5 typhoons to engine failure or carbon monoxide leaks for every one lost to enemy action. The Sabre engine had a life of only 25 hrs between overhauls! (provided you didn’t use emergency boost or full throttle or look at it sideways.

If you review the Napier Sabre engine in detail to understand how it works, it is a classic example of being smart enough to make a bad idea work. It should have taken only one or two prototype engines tested at low temperature and in dusty conditions to shitcan that stupid idea.

Here's a picture of the TA152-H

Read a book many years ago on the P 38 entitled The Forked Tailed Devil. Seem to recall it was written by Martin Caiden. There is a fascinating story about an aircraft that brought a dead pilot home from Italy to North Africa, so if you can find a copy it's worth reading.

Mach tuck was a real problem with the 38 in the ETO. Lockheed designed speed brakes for the aircraft, but the entire batch was being flown across the pond in a C-54 and the aircraft was lost.

As I recall, the 38 was originally designed as a high speed interceptor and photo recon aircraft, not a dogfighter. Both the highest scoring aces in the Pacific theatre, Richard Bong and Tommy McGuire, flew 38's. McGuire died in one, stalling out in a steep turn at low altitude.

The 38 also brought down Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto on a long range strike to Bouganville. You can still visit the wreckage of Yamamoto's Betty, if you're down that way.

P-factor is the problem described in various posts concering assymetric thrust caused by loss of the "critical" engine. The descending blade of a propeller at an increased angle of attack does produce more thrust than the ascending blade, hence the resulting uncontrollability that evolves if the aircraft is flown below VMc. I believe that Piper fielded a light twin that had counter-rotating props that reduced this problem, with both descending blades turning toward the fuselage.

BTW, if you're ever in the UK, don't miss the Imperial War Museum at Duxford. You might be able to get a ride in a Gypsy Moth, and you will see one of, if not the finest, static displays of Spits in the world.

I also seem to recall that several Brewster Buffalos were based on Wake Island and were shot down by Zekes before they had much of a chance to get into things. It's interesting that the Buffalo apparently fared better in Europe.

quote:

Originally posted by jetdrvr:P-factor is the problem described in various posts concering assymetric thrust caused by loss of the "critical" engine. The descending blade of a propeller at an increased angle of attack does produce more thrust than the ascending blade, hence the resulting uncontrollability that evolves if the aircraft is flown below VMc. .

Um, Captain, beg to differ . (I think). Say an ordinary light twin. Control will be lost with either engine out where the rudder power cannot compensate for the drag of the dead engine.

With both props turning the same way one will cause loss of control (I've heard) more than the other, (I think) not because of angle of attack of prop blades, (which theory I couldn't follow or visualise,) but perhaps because of the prop wash acting against the tail fin. ie either helping maintain control with the rudder or working against it.

Take our twin tail P 38. If both props were (say) turning clockwise from the cockpit the prop wash would twist around the booms and hit the tail-fins from mostly the one side.
So if one engine was out and draging, the other engine propwash would be pushing the tail even more the wrong way, and y'd run out of rudder control faster.
But all I know is in my little single engine that I needed a heap of right rudder during take off, and if the wind was from the left as was the prop-wash I could get into heaps of trouble.

Now I'm getting tired of thinking but if the P 38 was contra rotating the wrong way maybe the propwash was "wrong" for the rudder, no matter which engine was out. But a higher approach speed fixes a lot of problems.

Note rudder on take off.

VMc, minimum single engine control speed, is based upon rudder effectiveness. For example, when one loses the right engine on a Beech 18, and you are above VMC then you can continue to (barely) climb, because the thrust of the descending blade on the left prop is closer to the longitudinal axis of the aircraft. Lose the left engine and things will go bad quicker because the thrust of the descending blade of the right engine is further from the longitudinal axis of the aircraft, so the left engine on conventional prop-driven twins is called the critical engine. If you wish to continue the flight without spiraling into the ground, you must maintain best single-engine rate of climb speed, which is well above VMc. Get below that, and you are instantly in trouble. This is an excellent reason why you should not overload an aircraft, regardless of what the customer or the boss wants to you to do. With an overloaded aircraft, you may not be able to maintain best single engine rate of climb speed. Most piston-engined twins only have an airspeed envelope of two or three knots within which the airplane will climb at all at max takeoff gross weight on a standard day, (which nobody ever encounters), on one engine, even if you do everything right.
VMc is the speed at which rudder control becomes ineffective. The action you then have to take is to reduce thrust (power) on the operating engine and lower the nose until you gain sufficient airspeed to prevent rotation about the vertical axis of the aircraft. This is fine if you aren't 100 feet AGL when the engine fails. (You also must IMMEDIATELY feather the inoperative ingine.)

Engine torque, particularly on the big radials, also has an effect, but P-factor is your real problem.

In the photo, the Corsair is climbing and the angle of attack is naturally increased. That 2800 or whatever's up front has a high torque value, also, hence the substantial rudder deflection. P-factor changes with angle of attack. Torque is constant for a given power setting.

Take a light twin with conventionally rotating props out and try it somtime. Get plenty of altitude, feather the right engine, go to climb power on the left side and pull the nose up until you can't hold heading anymore. Then lower the nose without changing the power setting and you will gradually regain directional control as airspeed increases above VMc and the rudder regains effectiveness. Then do the same thing with the right engine turning. You will begin to lose directional control at a higher indicated airspeed with the left engine feathered. This is knows as a VMc demonstration.

I have demonstraded this to all pilots that I checked out in 18's and DC-3's, so I know it works. It's a question on the oral and a flight test demonstration for the Inspector riding with you on a DC-3 type rating ride or an ATP ride in a Beech, or any other light twin.

quote:

Most piston-engined twins only have an airspeed envelope of two or three knots within which the airplane will climb at all at max takeoff gross weight on a standard day, (which nobody ever encounters), on one engine, even if you do everything right.

Which is why my father says about twins..."twice as much chance for something to go wrong!"

friar

Thanks for your time and expertise fellas.
Now I know why I didn't bother with a twin endorsement. A friend who did said if one engine died on T.O. he'd pull both throttles back and land straight ahead. Heck, here we've had lightly loaded twin turbines go out of control just after T.O.

As for trying it, I've run out of medical certs. and no it wasn't a mental condition.

(But they were after me.)

A little trivia for ya..the US airforce had 1 for sure maybe two squadrons of Spits in WWII. I know one served in Italy.
The Spit was meant as an interceptor only in the early phase of the war. Later as the war dragged on they were up designed to be more capable re range and firepower. Most late war variants had the 2x20mm (hispano) and 2x.50 cal or 4x.303 (brownings) armament tho there might have been some with 4 20's manuf in small numbers. The Huri's came in three main armament variants 8x.303 machine guns (brownings) 12 of the same (rare)! Or the 4x20mm. A small number of tank busters with 2x40mm slung under the wing were tried in north africa. The Spit mark IX was prolly the main variant and the hi water mark of this aircraft. Superb dogfighter plane but not great at taking punishment. The Huri was much more rugged.. some of the B.of B. pilots that transitioned to the Spit actually preferred the Huri.

Got a little more info re the Spitfire Sq. in US service. There were actually 3 squadrons of them the 334th, 335th and the 336th of the 4th Fighter group of the 8th Air Force. They started out with Spitfire VB later they transitioned to P-47's.
All these pilots were originally Eagle Squadron pilots that transfered to the Usaf in 1942.

Lockheed P-38

Closely followed by a three-way tie for second:

Republic P-47
North American P-51
Grumman F6F

Worth a read regarding P-47s.

quote:

Originally posted by tom`:
Worth a read regarding P-47s.

Another story about the P-47
Francis Gabreski

quote:

Originally posted by ireload2:

Another story about the P-47
Francis Gabreski

I got to meet him at the Kalamazoo Air Zoo in the early 90s. Very entertaining story teller and nice man.

I always wondered what the poor slobs in Korean Migs thought when they tangled with Gabreski.

Not much love for the Corsair?? That was one helluva plane!

The P38 could have been "fixed" by increasing vertical stabilizer area (larger rudders)
OR the simple expedient of reversing the rotation direction of BOTH engines (I.E. swap the prop drives from side to side)

And the dive issues corrected by increasing the
horizontal control surface area, adding a spoiler/speed brake, or dive brakes.

Like the P39 was "fixed" by lengthening the fuselage giving the tail surfaces more "leverage" relative to the CG.

and much later the stability issues of the early model F-100 supersabre was fixed by increasing the vertical stabilizer area.

Generally speaking the "quality" of a particular machine can only be guaged in the context of the oponents it must face.

Example: The Spitfire Vs an early model Me109.
though the early model spitfires weren't adequately armed to be really effective
against bombers.

the Hurricane OTOH armed with 20mm cannon was devestating against the German bombers.


Later German fighters that were forced to face P51's which were armed with rapidly firing 50cal machine guns while carrying a heavy load of slower firing cannon intended to do severe dammage to heavily armored allied bombers.

In essence a late G model 109 was fighting at a handycap against the P-51's for this reason.

Ditto for the Fw190 models which were fitted with progressively heavier weapons loads, heavier internally mounted cannon wing pack mounted canno etc.

Yes hitting a P51 with a 30mm cannon could have devestating results but the challenge of doing so is not unlike hitting a goose in flight with a BAR.

Basically late in the war the P51's were equipped for a knife fight in a phone booth while the german fighters were carrying a pole axe intended to kill a horse.

It wasn't even remotely fair, frankly I wouldn't want to be a participant in a fair fight, I'd want every advantage I could find....

Another thing is everyone here has seen the results of 50cal AP ammo hitting the wings of a german fighter and detonating part of the fighters cannon ammunition load (simple contact fuzes, no rotational safeties)

a couple of it's own 20mm projectiles going off inside the wing in close proximity to the main wing spare results in complete & catastrophic failure of that structural member, aerodynamic forces do the rest...

In short there's a small "flash" a tiny puff of smoke visible in the american gun camera footage and the german's wing simply snaps off!

"Has anyone seen my wing?"

flying with an aircraft full of volatile fuel is bad enough, adding primitive sensitively fuzed explosive canno projectiles and you get an awful lot of great pictures of enemy aircraft being blown apart by their own ammo!

I'll vote for the P51, because in the hands of a competent pilot even a gifted pilot flying something else against it was at a severe disadvantage.

a gifted pilot in a P-51? we had those too...

Any other allied aircraft had both advantages and disadvantages and the pilot had to play to his own advantages and avoid the disadvantages
The P-51 had few real vices compared to any other aircraft.

The Corsair for instances had one of the highest Non-combat operational loss rates, simply because it was such a twitchy bitch to fly.

AD