Zanadu

To Stalin: Mine is a multi-volume effort copyrighted in the mid to late 60s (depending on volume. I bought them in '69 and '70 at the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago while I was stationed at Ft. Sheridan. My hitch ended in mid. '70 and I never could find the rest of the set. I have vol. 1-4 (fighters) vol. 5 (flying boats), vol.6 (floatplanes) and vol.7-10 (bombers--Australian, French and German up to the Messerschmitt Me328B)

My source: William Green's WARPLANES OF THE SECOND WORLD WAR (Vol. 3) States that the early LaG-5s were built by re-engining LaGG-3 airframes, and adds: "but at an early stage in the production programme the boosted M-82F was installed, the rear fuselage was cut down, an all-round-vision cockpit canopy provided, and the designation changed to La-5."

The P40 served well when it was used well. In North Africa, the Germans considered them a serious opponante for the '109E at the levels where combat was occuring there. Unfortunately, too many of the USAAF, RAAF and RNZAF pilots using them against the Japanese had to pay a high price learning how to use them properly. By the end of '42, they had gained something like parity in the air in the southern Pacific, due to improved tactics, when the newer a/c (P38s and F4Us) became available. The P40 wasn't an easy a/c to handle, but at least had nice, straightforward stall characteristics (unlike the P51, which could be really vicious). It was rugged, reasonably fast, and the Germans considered it to be extremely agile. A dogfight with a Curtis was something that wise '109 pilots avoided.

Sorry to hear he got hurt. Hitting solid stuff is bad!!! Quote from RAF Flt. Lt. Don Healy, No. 17 Sq. '45: "The Mk XIV was a hairy beast to fly, and took some getting used to. ... We were told to open the throttle very slowly at the start of our take-off,with full opposite rudder applied ... Even with full aileron, elevator and rudder, this brute ... still took off slightly sideways. "(The XIV) was 2000 lbs heavier than the Mk VIII, there for ... it tended to 'wash out' when being flown (in loops and rolls) this way. 'Ginger' Lacey graphically demonstrated how serious a problem this was when he attempted to do a loop from what he thought was an adequate starting height ... At the bottom of the loop he cleared the ground by barely four feet, and upon recovering back at the field, looked ten years older ..."

To Stalin: Yup, sounds just like a ground loop. A lot of engine torque + narrow undercarrige + pilot with wrong foot down = prang job!! Hope the pilot didn't get too badly banged on.

Pilots of the Spitfire XII were not happy with its ground handling qualities. It was an excellent low level fighter once in the air, but getting there was a problem. The Spitfire, like most high performance single engine prop a/c have a 'bend' in the airframe, so the the engine thrust line is actually about 1 to 1 and a half degrees off the a/c center line. This is to help compensate for the torque effect on take off. The Griffin rotates the opposite way from the Merlin for some reason, and had much more torque, but due to the hurry to get the XII in business, nobody appearantly thought to change the 'bend'. Result was that the throttle had to be opened VERY slowly and carefully on take off. The slightest carelessness and the a/c would either charge off in an unplanned direction, or ground loop viciously. At best, the a/c needed a much longer take off run than the Merlin models. Efforts were made in the MkXIV, to deal with the problem but it was never totally cured. The Griffin Spitfires were all really over engined for the airframe, and the handling characteristics suffered. Ginger Lacy was nearly killed converting to the MkXIV because he misjudged the difference in alititude loss is common maneuvers.

My William Green's WARPLANES OF THE SECOND WORLD WAR, Vol 2 for LaGG.3 list just a "typical armament" of 1x20mm, 1xHMG and 1xRCMG. Bill Gunston's FIGHTING AIRCRAFT OF WORLD WAR II describles LaGG.3 armament as "extremely varied. Mentions the above as 'typical' and describes the version with 3xHMG and 2xRCMG as being "used for Il.2 escort". Most likely, the Sovs put in whatever weaponry was most available at the time the individual a/c was built.

To SixxKiller: Excellent article. I agree. The Spit XIV is the best ftr in the game. The downside qualities of the actual Spitfire (very limited range and poor ground handling qualities -- especially in later models) don't figure into DiF. In real life, of course, Spitfire XIVs didn't do much escort work due to the range factor. That's why the RAF had squadrons of Mustangs.

Oh, and it wasn't the wing that was damaged on the test flight, it was the fuselage skin behind the cockpit, and the framing structure under it.

Yes, I was told that there was a harmonic vibration at diving speed that induced fatigue in the structure. No, the Vcr (critial velocity) of the a/c is the speed at which the a/c begins to generate shockwaves. The air moving around the wing/airframe has to reach Mach itself to generate shock. The P47 had a wing nearly as thick as the Tiffy, and the P47M could hit 480mph in level flight without compressibility. At higher altitudes, the a/c would move faster due to reduced drag from thinner air. As the a/c dived downward, its Vt (terminal velocity) went down, while the Vcr went up, all due to increasing air density. The P38 was the first a/c to encounter it seriously due to the combination of a relatively low Vcr (due to its unusual design), and high acceleration. At 35K, its top speed in level flight was only 30-40 mph below Vcr. Going into a dive from 35K it would be well into compressibility by the time it reached 28-29K, but it the pilot didn't panic, he could still recover when the a/c hit denser air at about 10K (plus or minus about 1K) and Vcr increased and Vt went down. Result was that compressibiltiy in WW2 a/c occured when an a/c dived from high altitude.

In theory true, but for WW2 a/c, not so. Compressibility was also a factor of air density. At low levels, period a/c could not go fast enough, even in a dive to be effected. The early rule for dealing with the effect, when encountered was to continue to try and pull out, throttle back, and wait until you go down into denser air and control would be regained. Conpressibiltiy was encountered at anywhere from about .67 to .8 of Mach for ww2 a/c. The big problem was 'tuck'. Mach shock waves from the wings, striking the tail would put an uncontrollable upward force on the surfaces. Some Mustangs ripped off their own tails that way. At least 3 times, P38 pilots actually escaped by 'outside looping' back into level flight, inverted (consider the structural stress of doing that) when they couldn't pull up. Anyway, as air density increased, the speed of Mach increased. Dive recovery flaps were finally installed in P38s and P47s providing enough 'lift' from air deflection to allow pull out. Pilots in the MTO and Pacific didn't use them much as they rarely operated at the higher altitudes where the problem was encountered.

To Stalin Ref Tiffy's tail structure failures. You thought it was compressibility. I can't agree. The Typhoon rarely flew high enough to have problems with compressibility in a dive. The original prototype was modified almost at once with a larger tail fin due to lateral stability problems, but the fuselage was not re stressed. This soon led to a structural failure of the skin behind the cockpit, with the test pilot awarded the George Cross for landing the a/c safely. Testing was hard as the Sabre engine had to be overhauled every ten hours of operation. The first two squadrons were assigned almost exclusively to hunting low lever FW190 ftr-bomber intruder strikes, and of the first 142 a/c delivered, 135 suffered either engine or structural failure resulting in serious damage or loss of a/c. At that point, the Sabre still had to be overhauled every 25 operating hours, and appearantly, most of them didn't get that far.

In a recent magazine article ref. Japnaese WW2 a/c there was mention of an award called "BUKOSHO" which was described as: " a Japanese equivalent of the (US) Medal of Honor instituted by Emmperor Hirohito on December 7, 1944. The award broke from the Japanese tradition of honoring heroes only after death. One recipient was Warrant Officer Kenji Fujimoto of the 246th Sentai, who was credited with three B-29s, including one from the 499th Bomb Group that he rammed (in a Ki-84) and brought down on March 13, 1945. After he rammed a second B-29 over Kobe on March 16, Fujimoto was awarded the BUKOSHO."

True, although the early units of Ki-84s were made up of picked veteran pilots. Anyway, in DiF, pilot quality is something you can do something about.

To SixxKiller: You commented on the Nakajima Ki84 earlier. The cover article of the new issue of AVIATION HISTORY magazine is on the HAYATE. It includes the best description I've seen of the combat in which Tommy McGuire was killed. Author states that the Ki84 was an even better design than it's record indicated. It was badly handicapped by poor quality control in manufacturing, shortage of qualified mechanics for proper maintainence, and declining quality of Japanese aviation fuel.

Yes, as I said, the Tiffy had external reinforcement plates added around the rear fuselage. That worked, but it was later learned that the problem wasn't a structural weakness, but a metal fatigue issue. The LaGG3 became the most numerous Sov. ftr. becasuse they didn't really have anything better. Except that it was faster, the MiG was more of the same. In wartime, some really bad a/c end up used in combat because they fill some need in spite of serious problems, and the casualties that went with them. Look at the MkXII Spitfire, for example.

Am much looking forward to it.

Sorry, that should be N1K1/2-J, not NiKi/2-J.

Of the current list of a/c, it seems to me that the most obviously missing are the US F6F, the British Spitfire MkIX (or the VIII which was about the same performance, but had more range, and was extensively used in the MTO and Asia), the Germans should have both the FW190A and D, and the Japanese Ki84 (Frank) and/or NiK1/2-J (George). The A6M8 Zero is kind of fun to use, even though it never got beyond prototype stage. Guess you could include the A7M Reppu (the Zero's replacement) as it got to about the same stage. You might consider including the Bell P39 Airacobra with the Russians, as they used more that the US did. With the US types it would be pretty close to the P40s anyway. A little less performance, but more firepower.

I will grant that the one really good point about the LaGGs were that they prouced a very rugged airframe at a remarkably low weight. The problem with comparing the LaGG with the Typhoon is that the Tiffy (once they put the reinforcements on it) still had bad features, but they didn't involve the things that you actually did in combat. Once you got it into the air and above 100mph, you were in business. The LaGGs handling problems involved exactly the things you needed to do in combat -- rapid changes in a/c attitude.

In the air, the Corsair looks great. The controls are so well balanced that it seems to be impossible to make the a/c do anything that doesn't look graceful. On the ground, however, the fuselage looks like a distorted baseball bat with bent wings and a tail put on as an afterthougt. It was one of the most totally goal-driven designs ever produced, without concern for appearance. Everything about it was dictated by the engineering consdierations, without a hint of the "if it looks good it'll fly good" philosophy.

No, I said the Marines traded Wildcats for Corsairs. Army P39 pilots went into the P38s.

One agreement, one not. I agree about the Battle and the Douglas TBD (I think that's what you meant, not the Grumman TBF that replaced it starting in June '42). These were very advanced a/c when they were introduced. Trouble was that they went into combat after they had become obsolencent (to be polite) and in terrible tactical situations becasue there was NOTHING else available at the time. Predictable results. Comparing the I16 and LaGG1 to horses and tanks is not accurate. Both were retractable landing gear monoplaces. Different models of 'tank'. I've never heard of pilots refusing a newer a/c if they thought it was an improvement. There's the rub. The LaGG1 wasn't seen as an improvement over the I16. The production a/c weren't any faster even before the canopys were removed, and any maneuverability advantage was largely negated by the handling problems. That made it a matter of "the devil you know ..." Did US P39 pilots in the SW Pacific turn down those nasty new P38s to stay with their trusty Airacobras?? Did the Marines in the Solomons insist that the Wildcat was good enough, and they didn't want those ugly Corsairs?? Not hardly!! When the pilots think the new a/c is better, you can't keep 'em away.

I'd never point to the I16 as an example of flying virtue. Which makes the fact that so many pilots preferred them to the LaGGs and MiGs that much more of an indictment. By the way, the Typhoon wasn't supposed to be a2g. It was intended to be a Hurricane replacement. A general purpose fighter-interceptor to suppliment, and possibly replace the Spitfire. Due to lack of performance at higher altitudes, the RAF used 'em for what they could do. That considered, they made a major contribution.

No, not a failure. It was certainly effective in the a2g role, but with a single liquid cooled engine, its combat loss rate was considerably higher than that of the P47s the US used for the same job. And even after the Sabre engine was de-bugged, and the external re-inforcement plates ended the problem of the tail seperating in flight, combining a very high-torque engine with flight controls that weren't effective below about 100 mph made for some really 'interesting' take offs, and a non-combat loss rate higher than most combat a/c of the period.