#1 Piston Fighter was British

Anybody else getting tired of this thread?

Jack
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
thlink.net...

"Ed Majden" wrote in message
a...

The P51 wasn't a high performance fighter until the Brits installed
the RR Merlin in it. This increased speed and performance making
the Mustang a top long range fighter.


All P-51s were high-performance fighters, the Merlin made it a
high-altitude
fighter as well. It was the high performance of the Mustang I that
prompted
the installation of the Merlin.

Incidentally, while the British were the first to fly a Merlin Mustang,
they
didn't win the race by a great deal. Rolls-Royce flew the first Merlin
Mustang, a Mustang I with a Merlin 65, on October 13, 1942. North
American
flew the XP-51B, a P-51 with a V-1650-3, on November 30, 1942. Before the
first flight of a Merlin Mustang on either side of the Atlantic the USAAF
had 1750 P-51B/Cs on order with NAA.

(ArtKramr) wrote in message ...
Subject: #1 Piston Fighter was British
From: nt (Gordon)
Date: 6/29/03 8:32 AM Pacific Daylight Time

the Ju 88 was arguably the best bomber in
service in Europe in 1940.

You have just pinpointed Germany's problem in WW II. One of many.
Arguably? Very arguably.


Then which European bomber do you think outclassed the Ju 88 in 1940? Not
looking for an argument, Art, just your opinion. RAF pilots sure make it
sound
like the Ju 88 was more of a problem than, say, a 111. In contrast to the
Hampden Is and other RAF mediums in 1940, was the Ju 88 really all that
awful?

v/r
Gordon



No no no. It was a good bomber. A very good bomber. But it has taken on a halo
since the war it doesn't deserve.. It couldn't outrun fighters. It couldn't
withstand heavy attacks like a B-26 could.. And the sad part is, that if it was
the best bomber Germany had, it wasn't good enough. because they may have
invaded England if they had long range heavies to destroy the RAF bases on
the ground. None of the German bombers could do the long range job Germany
needed done..German thinking about bombing basics was just wrong. The Americans
and the Brits had it right from the get-go.

Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

By the end of 1942 Ju88 production shifted from mainly being a bomber
to that of night fighter or long range fighter to try and give a
little protection for the u-boats from air attack. Only 1000 Ju88
bombers were built in 1943 while about 4000 fighters were.

When the 1100hp Jumo 211 was replaced with a BMW801 radial or the Jumo
213 of about 1750hp the speed went up to 388mph for the streamlined
1944 Ju88S bomber and 360mph for the Ju88G-7 nightfighter with
microwave radar (it also had a ventral gun pack) or 340mph with the
draggy lichtenstein radar antena.

The Germans had intended to replace their bombers with 'Bomber B'.
The Ju288 was the winning proposal and would begining in 1942 have
carried 4 tons of bombs up to 408mph up to 2300 miles.

Clearly a powerfull weapon.

It was armed with 6 pairs of remote control guns in the tail, ventral
postion and dorsal postition. The tail guns were the Mk151/15 which
was the 15mm version of the Mk151/20 20mm cannon firing a narrower
bullet with the same cartridege to over power and outrange even the US
50 caliber Browning.

Bomber B failed becuase of technical difficulties on the Jumo 222 in
line star engine. I don't know why, as the engine doesn't look that
challenging. They apparently did get it in to production in 1944 for
a very short time.

The result was that some of the ideas of the Ju288 were taken and the
Ju88 was modified to become the Ju188 in the interim. It was only a
little faster at 320mph but was better armed yet clearly incapable of
penetraing enemy airspace alone on either the basis of speed or
armament.

It is invalid I think to directly to compare the Ju88 to the B26
Marauder. The German equaivalent was the Do 217. An aircraft more
lightly armed but faster (320mph with BMW801s or 340mph with DD603
engines).

Even if the Germans had beaut planes like Marauders I think they would
have been shot down in daylight raids. Without long range escorts all
bombers except the Mosquito would accumulate intollerable losses.

The Ju88 however was an accurate dive and slant bomber that with its
computing stuvi bombsight and automatic pullup could deliver big
1000kg bombs within 10 meters without dropping below 2000 meters
altitude. It was also considered manoeverable and could be thrown
fairly briskly around the sky. Another advantge was that it could
work on rough muddy fields; those big wheels rotated into the engine
pods. All things a B26 couldn't do. The B26 was considered less
suitable than the B25 in the pacific because it needed a pretty solid
runway.

The Ju88 also formed the basis of the Ju388. This was supposed to
become a high altitude night figher (to interecept B29s), high
altitude bomber and high altitude reconaisance machine. It had remote
controlled tail armament. Only Some 300 of the Ju388 reconaisance
version were built. They used a turbo supercharged version of the
BMW801 the BMW801TJ with a 5 piece intercooler behined the big radial.
Speed was something like 390mph at 40,000 feet.

Incidently the Ju88 was designed, in the detail by a Brit and an
American. Germany was short of sufficient engineers so Junkers hired
some on contract.

Subject: #1 Piston Fighter was British
From: (JonB)
Date: 7/6/03 9:06 AM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
. earthlink.net...
"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...

We stood to on the 5th for D--Day. as did a few hundred other outfits..
It
was
scheduled for the 5th. You really know nothing do you?.


I know D-Day was June 6th. I'm sure you knew that at one time as well, but
sometime between 1944 and 2000 you came to "remember" D-Day as June 5th.

Art's right. It was intended to be the 5th. They embarked and then
they waited. On the 6th, they went. Every diary entry and letter home
written at the time would have had it down as the 5th (if any date at
all). It is only the 6th in retrospective news reports and history
books that overlook the delay.


Of course those of us that were there stood to on the 5th. Others never
noticed. (sigh)

Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

Subject: #1 Piston Fighter was British
From: Cub Driver
Date: 7/10/03 2:57 AM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:



Many non combat aircraft get shot at. It is shooting back thay makes them
combat aircraft.

Thank you, Art. Very succiently stated.

There is a great confusion here between what is dangerous and what is
combat, never mind what is a combat aircraft.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9


And of of course carrying a bombload is the equivalent of "shooting back".

Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

In article , ArtKramr
writes
And of of course carrying a bombload is the equivalent of "shooting back".

As did the V1 which was the start of this discussion, we seem to be
going round in circles...

--
John

Many non combat aircraft get shot at. It is shooting back thay makes them
combat aircraft.

So a Mosquito B. IV is a non-combat aircraft, because it cannot shoot?

C-47 = non-combat?
but a miserably-armed Ju 52/3m = combat a/c?

I would think that if you sent an aircraft into combat, that its a combat a/c.
Differences of opinion, I guess.

v/r
Gordon
====(A+C====
USN SAR Aircrew

"Got anything on your radar, SENSO?"
"Nothing but my forehead, sir."

"Gordon" wrote

I would think that if you sent an aircraft into combat,
that its a combat a/c.

That would seem to make sense, with the defining
words "sent into combat" (as compared to "happened
into combat accidentally.")

It's difficult to believe anyone would seriously consider
a C-47 (or whatever) on a mission to insert paratroops
in a combat zone not a "combat aircraft."

From the Air Force News Agency:

"On 6 Jun 44, [Captain Vito] Pedone and Lieutenant Colonel
Joel Crouch, led the tactical beginning for the liberation of
Europe. Their mission was to cross the enemy coast on the
west shore of the Cherbourg Peninsula, France at 0006 hours
on 6 Jun. At 0016 hours, their C-47 dropped 18 paratroopers
on Normandy beach."

Only "combat aircraft" fly tactical missions, IMO.

On 29 Jun 2003 17:04:35 GMT, nt (Gordon) wrote:


Well, the Hampdens, Battles and their ilk were certainly a disaster, but I do
agree that the German idea of a bomber primarily useful as a CAS asset was a
huge flaw.

If your primary enemies (Poland, France) are on your borders, than
designing bomber that will help the army subdue the enemy in shortest
possible time looks like a good move to me.

The German's prewar thinking was how to win battles, not sustain a
nearly indefinite war - something both America and Russia could afford to do.

Germany could never win a nearly indefinite war against opponents who
enjoyed the command of the seas and access to resources Germany
lacked.

I think its a very lucky thing that the man that would have insured the Germans
possessed a heavy bomber died in the years leading up to the war. Without a
strategic bomber, Germany never had a chance.

Strategic bombers were not needed to defeat Poland, nor France. They
weren't needed for invasion of USSR either. Germany did not posses
resources to build both, strategic bombers and tactical ones. They did
not have fuel for both. Given the historical reality, they picked the
weapon that matched their needs. Political map of Europe in June 1940
reflects this.


Drax
remove NOSPAM for reply