Dogfights

[old_pop2000]

This is a more generic dogfights thread.

I watched dogfights yesterday, the episode about the Hellcat and its first combats over Wake and Rabaul. There was one scene, discussing the Zero and why it couldn't dive. I am not certain that was accurate, entirely.

Up to the Model 52, the Zero had wing panels of around .028 inch. in the leading edge, to .035 inch mid length, to .027 inch. These are very thin panels to provide resistance to torsional pressures developed in flight by the ailerons. When ailerons are used in high speed flight, they put a twisting moment on the wing. To counteract tip stall, the outer portion of the wing was washed out. Basically, it had a twist downward. This forces the stalling of the wing to occur at the wing root, giving the plane a more predictable stall characteristic. It will now stall and drop the nose, not drop a wing tip, which will cause a spin. When in a high speed dive, the use of ailerons will increase the washout, thereby causing a phenomenon called aileron reverse. Basically the ailerons do the opposite of what they are supposed to do. High speed jets had this problem, especially with swept wings. This is the real problem with the Zero ailerons, along with the lack of structural strength which allowed the wing to break up due to increase twisting moments. I am not good at explaining this, but I understand it. The Model 52 had thicker wing panels and could dive at high speed.

I also believe that the aircraft that the Hellcat might have encountered were probably Model 52's, not Model 21 or Model 32's. I am headed to the Midway museum tomorrow, maybe I can ask the gentleman on the program, who was from the museum. I am going to their newly renovated library.

[djcyclone]

Sounds good too me.:confused:


I have no idea what your talking about, but you sound like you know a bit about aircraft so I will agree with you for what it is worth.

(NOTHING):D

[Ed Rotondaro]

This is a more generic dogfights thread.

I watched dogfights yesterday, the episode about the Hellcat and its first combats over Wake and Rabaul. There was one scene, discussing the Zero and why it couldn't dive. I am not certain that was accurate, entirely.

Up to the Model 52, the Zero had wing panels of around .028 inch. in the leading edge, to .035 inch mid length, to .027 inch. These are very thin panels to provide resistance to torsional pressures developed in flight by the ailerons. When ailerons are used in high speed flight, they put a twisting moment on the wing. To counteract tip stall, the outer portion of the wing was washed out. Basically, it had a twist downward. This forces the stalling of the wing to occur at the wing root, giving the plane a more predictable stall characteristic. It will now stall and drop the nose, not drop a wing tip, which will cause a spin. When in a high speed dive, the use of ailerons will increase the washout, thereby causing a phenomenon called aileron reverse. Basically the ailerons do the opposite of what they are supposed to do. High speed jets had this problem, especially with swept wings. This is the real problem with the Zero ailerons, along with the lack of structural strength which allowed the wing to break up due to increase twisting moments. I am not good at explaining this, but I understand it. The Model 52 had thicker wing panels and could dive at high speed.

I also believe that the aircraft that the Hellcat might have encountered were probably Model 52's, not Model 21 or Model 32's. I am headed to the Midway museum tomorrow, maybe I can ask the gentleman on the program, who was from the museum. I am going to their newly renovated library.

Dennis:

I have not had the chance to see that episode. Was it strictly on the Hellcat? Also can you recommend a good dummies level primer on flight and the various aspects that cause aircraft to perform the way they do? God it's easier to memorize battleship stats than understand the physics of flight.

[old_pop2000]

Dennis:

I have not had the chance to see that episode. Was it strictly on the Hellcat? Also can you recommend a good dummies level primer on flight and the various aspects that cause aircraft to perform the way they do? God it's easier to memorize battleship stats than understand the physics of flight.
Here you go, Ed m'lad.

http://www.aeronautics.nasa.gov/fap/students_2.html

This should keep you going for a while.

It was about the first encounters between the Zero and newly deployed Hellcat. It was good.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Here you go, Ed m'lad.

http://www.aeronautics.nasa.gov/fap/students_2.html

This should keep you going for a while.

It was about the first encounters between the Zero and newly deployed Hellcat. It was good.


Dennis:

Thanks old friend. My eldest son will enjoy it as well. He's crazy about aircraft and loves Dogfights and Battle 360. I'm going to have to buy a flight sim for him eventually.

[old_pop2000]

I just finished watching the USS Midway episode of Dogfights. It was good, as usual. They describe a dogfight with a Mig-17 and an F4 flown by Mugs Mckeown in which Mckeown with a Mig on his tail, pulls a maneuver that only a brave and excellent pilot would have attempted. He pushes his stick forward hard to drop the nose, then hits the rudder. The F4 nose drops and quickly slides to the right, at which time, Mugs pulls back hard on the stick back, kicking the rudder hard again, causing it to tumble end over end. It's hard to describe without graphics. Anyone who knows the F4, knows that it was unforgiveable in a spin. Anyway, it worked, the Mig flew by and hightailed it away after Mugs fired a sidewinder at him.

Here is a portion of the episode on YOUTUBE. You got to see this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kx8NK5z03A0

Ed:
I hope your son can watch this episode or at least, this video. A flight sim will not do this maneuver justice, trust me.

[Ed Rotondaro]

I just finished watching the USS Midway episode of Dogfights. It was good, as usual. They describe a dogfight with a Mig-17 and an F4 flown by Mugs Mckeown in which Mckeown with a Mig on his tail, pulls a maneuver that only a brave and excellent pilot would have attempted. He pushes his stick forward hard to drop the nose, then hits the rudder. The F4 nose drops and quickly slides to the right, at which time, Mugs pulls back hard on the stick back, kicking the rudder hard again, causing it to tumble end over end. It's hard to describe without graphics. Anyone who knows the F4, knows that it was unforgiveable in a spin. Anyway, it worked, the Mig flew by and hightailed it away after Mugs fired a sidewinder at him.

Here is a portion of the episode on YOUTUBE. You got to see this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kx8NK5z03A0

Ed:
I hope your son can watch this episode or at least, this video. A flight sim will not do this maneuver justice, trust me.

Dennis:

That was excellent. The maneuver looks sort of like the one the Russian pilots at airshows perform with the cutting edge fighters "the Pugachev Cobra". I've read that if the Rhino went into a spin it was usually forced to hit the silk. That pilot must have know the plane like he knew his lover's body (pardon the risky analogy). I've got to see that episode. Thanks.

[asnrobert]

Wow!

Was Mckeown flying as low to the ground as they show in the simulation? If so, then that maneuver would have seemed like a sure-fire way to augur in... :eek:

[old_pop2000]

If any of you have watched Dogfights on the History Channel, you have probably watched the episode that related the fight between Cunningham and Driscoll and Colonel Nguyen Toon in Vietnam. As you remember, Cunningham had just finished a dogfight with four Migs and was heading back to the Conny flying at 10,000 ft when he spotted a Mig-17 coming at him. Anyway, he eventually, after a lengthy dogfight, shot Toon down.

Now, the interesting question that has never been asked or answered is: Why didn't Willi Driscoll spot the Mig-17 on his AWG-10A radar. No, he wasn't within min range on the system. Think about this. Yes, he was in the search mode, not the acquisition and track mode of the radar. When the AWG-10A is doing a three bar scan, the RIO has a scope down low in the cockpit with a vertical line trace that moves back and forth, once he hits the half action switch on the radar control in front of him, the set switches to the acquisition and then he goes to full action by hitting the switch all the way back. There is a detent on the switch. Half way is acquisition, full is track. No where does Driscoll or Cunningham ever mention what happened and why he did not spot that aircraft on radar before Cunningham did with his Mark 1 eyeballs.

[Mike Malanaphy]

If any of you have watched Dogfights on the History Channel, you have probably watched the episode that related the fight between Cunningham and Driscoll and Colonel Nguyen Toon in Vietnam. As you remember, Cunningham had just finished a dogfight with four Migs and was heading back to the Conny flying at 10,000 ft when he spotted a Mig-17 coming at him. Anyway, he eventually, after a lengthy dogfight, shot Toon down.

Now, the interesting question that has never been asked or answered is: Why didn't Willi Driscoll spot the Mig-17 on his AWG-10A radar. No, he wasn't within min range on the system. Think about this. Yes, he was in the search mode, not the acquisition and track mode of the radar. When the AWG-10A is doing a three bar scan, the RIO has a scope down low in the cockpit with a vertical line trace that moves back and forth, once he hits the half action switch on the radar control in front of him, the set switches to the acquisition and then he goes to full action by hitting the switch all the way back. There is a detent on the switch. Half way is acquisition, full is track. No where does Driscoll or Cunningham ever mention what happened and why he did not spot that aircraft on radar before Cunningham did with his Mark 1 eyeballs.

Hi Dennis,

Is that the episode where they get by fragments from an SA-2 and he flies the F4 while it is on fire to reach the sea for an overwater bailout??

[old_pop2000]

Hi Dennis,

Is that the episode where they get by fragments from an SA-2 and he flies the F4 while it is on fire to reach the sea for an overwater bailout??

Yup, after the Toon fight, as he was heading outside to sea, he was tracked and hit by a SA-2 which destroyed the tail. He bailed out over water and was picked up by helo.

[old_pop2000]

Just to keep the record straight, after Vietnam, research by many different sources including official ones, states that a Colonel Tomb, Toon never existed. The pilot might have been a Nguyen Huang. That does not mean Cunningham did not shoot down that Mig-17, its just that his name was not Toon or Tomb. In fact, he might have been just another regular pilot or possibly a Russian pilot.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Just to keep the record straight, after Vietnam, research by many different sources including official ones, states that a Colonel Tomb, Toon never existed. The pilot might have been a Nguyen Huang. That does not mean Cunningham did not shoot down that Mig-17, its just that his name was not Toon or Tomb. In fact, he might have been just another regular pilot or possibly a Russian pilot.


Dennis:

I've heard that Toon may have been an amalgam of several skilled pilots who fought in Migs.

[LarryC]

Pop I suggest you are over thinking this. The Zero was a light aircraft. Hellcat and other US fighters were much heavier (twice or 3x as heavy). Their frontal areas were similar. Therefore the greater weight will fall at a higher velocity. Drop a rock from altitude it reaches terminal velocity- no more.

[old_pop2000]

Pop I suggest you are over thinking this. The Zero was a light aircraft. Hellcat and other US fighters were much heavier (twice or 3x as heavy). Their frontal areas were similar. Therefore the greater weight will fall at a higher velocity. Drop a rock from altitude it reaches terminal velocity- no more.

I am sorry, but you have me at a disadvantage. I am not certain as to what you are referring to. I am discussing the fight between Cunningham/Driscoll in Vietnam against a Mig-17, what are you referring to. I am aware that based on the formula Terminal Velocity V is equal to 2 * weight divided by drag coefficient Cd times the density of the gas times the frontal area of the object. Based on that formula, the terminal velocity of an object is directly proportional to the weight and inversely proportional to the amount of drag and frontal area. Since the aircraft in question are all radial engined fighters, they will have Cd and frontal areas of similar dimensions enough to be disregarded, so the heavier aircraft will dive faster than a lighter aircraft. Ok.

[old_pop2000]

Just to note:

If an aircraft commences a dive at 40,000 ft. the air density is less, so the V or Terminal velocity is higher but as the aircraft descends, the density of air increases and therefore, the terminal velocity decreases. Diving speeds calculated at 40000 ft will be different than those calculated at 10000 ft. Hence, altitude is life.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Just to note:

If an aircraft commences a dive at 40,000 ft. the air density is less, so the V or Terminal velocity is higher but as the aircraft descends, the density of air increases and therefore, the terminal velocity decreases. Diving speeds calculated at 40000 ft will be different than those calculated at 10000 ft. Hence, altitude is life.

Dennis:

Even the Brewster Buffalo was dangerous if it could dive on its opponents.

[old_pop2000]

Dennis:

Even the Brewster Buffalo was dangerous if it could dive on its opponents.

Essentially, that is correct. The P-38's claim to fame was its high diving speed due to good aerodynamics and high weight. This was offset by the problems of compressibility during the dive. However, with the forward firing weapons and the high terminal velocity coupled with turbocharged engines for good high altitude performance, it was a deadly aircraft in the boom and zoom attack mode.

[LarryC]

I am sorry, but you have me at a disadvantage. I am not certain as to what you are referring to.

I apologize. I chose not to quote you directly, assuming my speaking of the Zero and Hellcat would refer you to your opening statement of this thread. The term terminal velocity means, by definition, the understanding of time/location/altitude. As I understand it in any case.



Even the Brewster Buffalo was dangerous if it could dive on its opponents.

I'm sure we all concur. And pilots understood this as well. The P39 and P40 were used this way. The Wildcat too. Even an SBD could be used in this manner. But it is a tactical use, not a design parameter(referring to Pop's discussion of the Zero's wing panels).

The P38 was somewhat different being designed as an interceptor. High speed and rate of climb being required. I feel that the plane's size and weight, combined with its intended target(bombers) almost guarantees that the 'zoom and boom' method was intended.

[Ed Rotondaro]

I apologize. I chose not to quote you directly, assuming my speaking of the Zero and Hellcat would refer you to your opening statement of this thread. The term terminal velocity means, by definition, the understanding of time/location/altitude. As I understand it in any case.




I'm sure we all concur. And pilots understood this as well. The P39 and P40 were used this way. The Wildcat too. Even an SBD could be used in this manner. But it is a tactical use, not a design parameter(referring to Pop's discussion of the Zero's wing panels).

The P38 was somewhat different being designed as an interceptor. High speed and rate of climb being required. I feel that the plane's size and weight, combined with its intended target(bombers) almost guarantees that the 'zoom and boom' method was intended.


Larry:

It's always a good idea to use the quote function when responding to a thread, especially if it has been going on for a awhile. Some of these threads have as much as a hundred responses and drift from the original topic to a totally different one. Just some friendly advice and welcome aboard.

Sincerely,

[old_pop2000]

I'm sure we all concur. And pilots understood this as well. The P39 and P40 were used this way. The Wildcat too. Even an SBD could be used in this manner. But it is a tactical use, not a design parameter(referring to Pop's discussion of the Zero's wing panels).

The P38 was somewhat different being designed as an interceptor. High speed and rate of climb being required. I feel that the plane's size and weight, combined with its intended target(bombers) almost guarantees that the 'zoom and boom' method was intended.

In air combat maneuvering, there are offensive and defensive tactics. The dive and climb is an offensive maneuver that requires a height advantage to execute. It also requires advanced notice and time to climb to altitude. Hence, most true interceptor were high climb rate aircraft like the P-38. She had two engines because the only way to meet the requirements was with two engines using the booms to house the turbochargers. It was always expected that she would have the height advantage. In the SW Pacific, flying from Guadalcanal and other bases, the P-38's always had advanced notice from radar of approaching Japanese aircraft.

Escort fighter are alway, or almost always in a defensive mode, so their flight requirements should be different. They usually have excellent roll rates, good turn circles, climb well and have modest terminal dive speeds.

The dive and climb or boom and zoom is not restricted to just interceptors although they are usually optimized for that.

[LarryC]

Thanks for the welcome Ed but I've been around awhile, sticking my oar in on occasion .

I can't document my sources so I'll throw this out there to be refuted (or not) by others: In the mid- 30s the USAAF issued requirements for 2 new aircraft. One being a high altitude interceptor, the other for a general purpose fighter with ground attack capability.

The interceptor: the P38 was accepted. However the requirement was for 50 A/C only. The designers, knowing this, designed the P38 for hand construction. When war came the plane had to be redesigned for mass production- which explains why there were so few P38s early war despite being accepted before the P39 and 40.

The fighter: both P39 and P40 were accepted for this role. The requirement, however, did not include high altitude performance so neither one had a supercharger. As far as I know the P39 never did. I think the P40 gained one.. in the E model? Maybe later.

So in 1942 the USAAF had 2 rugged, dependable fighters(the few P38s being kept stateside) - with little high altitude performance. Claire Chennault understood this so the Flying Tigers used the zoom and boom from day one. Thats why his ground detection system was so important.

Escort fighter: whatever was available was thrust into this role. It wasn't till the P51 that the USAAF had an aircraft intended for this use. After the war radar negated the need. Air superiority fighters could intercept the enemy.

[Ed Rotondaro]

In air combat maneuvering, there are offensive and defensive tactics. The dive and climb is an offensive maneuver that requires a height advantage to execute. It also requires advanced notice and time to climb to altitude. Hence, most true interceptor were high climb rate aircraft like the P-38. She had two engines because the only way to meet the requirements was with two engines using the booms to house the turbochargers. It was always expected that she would have the height advantage. In the SW Pacific, flying from Guadalcanal and other bases, the P-38's always had advanced notice from radar of approaching Japanese aircraft.

Escort fighter are alway, or almost always in a defensive mode, so their flight requirements should be different. They usually have excellent roll rates, good turn circles, climb well and have modest terminal dive speeds.

The dive and climb or boom and zoom is not restricted to just interceptors although they are usually optimized for that.

Dennis:

Excellent summation. The roll could be used to counter an opponent with a superior rate of turn. The US used the snap roll to come around into an opponent's beam whereas the Russians used the snap roll to come behind a faster opponent who was chasing them.

Regarding the P-38 and altitude, that's how Tommy McGuire, a hot shot P-38 ace got killed. He had written a manual for Lightning pilots on air combat stressing keeping up speed and gaining altitude. He unfortunately got jumped at low altitude while still carrying his drop tanks and either crashed or was shot down by a veteran Zero pilot. Had he survived there was a good chance he could have bested Richard Bong's score of 40 kills.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Thanks for the welcome Ed but I've been around awhile, sticking my oar in on occasion .

I can't document my sources so I'll throw this out there to be refuted (or not) by others: In the mid- 30s the USAAF issued requirements for 2 new aircraft. One being a high altitude interceptor, the other for a general purpose fighter with ground attack capability.

The interceptor: the P38 was accepted. However the requirement was for 50 A/C only. The designers, knowing this, designed the P38 for hand construction. When war came the plane had to be redesigned for mass production- which explains why there were so few P38s early war despite being accepted before the P39 and 40.

The fighter: both P39 and P40 were accepted for this role. The requirement, however, did not include high altitude performance so neither one had a supercharger. As far as I know the P39 never did. I think the P40 gained one.. in the E model? Maybe later.

So in 1942 the USAAF had 2 rugged, dependable fighters(the few P38s being kept stateside) - with little high altitude performance. Claire Chennault understood this so the Flying Tigers used the zoom and boom from day one. Thats why his ground detection system was so important.

Escort fighter: whatever was available was thrust into this role. It wasn't till the P51 that the USAAF had an aircraft intended for this use. After the war radar negated the need. Air superiority fighters could intercept the enemy.

Hi Larry:

That pretty much tracks with what Martin Caidin details in his book on the P-38 (highly recommended). The late model P-40s did have superchargers and it vastly improved their performance. The same can be said of the late model Wildcats that had bigger engines. A good design can always be upgraded (Spitfire, FW-190, ME-109, Corsair).

[old_pop2000]

I can't document my sources so I'll throw this out there to be refuted (or not) by others: In the mid- 30s the USAAF issued requirements for 2 new aircraft. One being a high altitude interceptor, the other for a general purpose fighter with ground attack capability.

The interceptor: the P38 was accepted. However the requirement was for 50 A/C only. The designers, knowing this, designed the P38 for hand construction. When war came the plane had to be redesigned for mass production- which explains why there were so few P38s early war despite being accepted before the P39 and 40.

The fighter: both P39 and P40 were accepted for this role. The requirement, however, did not include high altitude performance so neither one had a supercharger. As far as I know the P39 never did. I think the P40 gained one.. in the E model? Maybe later.

So in 1942 the USAAF had 2 rugged, dependable fighters(the few P38s being kept stateside) - with little high altitude performance. Claire Chennault understood this so the Flying Tigers used the zoom and boom from day one. Thats why his ground detection system was so important.

Escort fighter: whatever was available was thrust into this role. It wasn't till the P51 that the USAAF had an aircraft intended for this use. After the war radar negated the need. Air superiority fighters could intercept the enemy.

The main source for the P-38 saga comes from a book written by Martin Caiden titled "The Fork-Tailed Devil: The P-38". I have a first printing from 1971 of the book. Caiden's source for much of the original story comes from his long time friend and test pilot, Tony LaVer who did the testing of the original P-38.

The original requirements were let to the manufacturers in 1937 for a limited range high altitude interceptor with a max speed of 360 MPH and a time to climb to 20000 ft of six minutes from takeoff roll It also had to be able to takeoff in 2200 ft clearing a 50 ft. obstacle at the end. The plane was designed by H.L. Hibbard and Kelly Johnson. The design that we see as the P-38 was the sixth drawing or proposal. It was designed as the Model 22.
I will leave you to get the book, if you don't have it, and finish the story.

As to the aircraft of the time, the P-39 and P-40 were always designed as ground attack aircraft, the P-47 as a high altitude fighter and P-51 as a low altitude rhubarb fighter. There were no aircraft specifically designed as a long range escort because the doctrine did not exist so neither did the requirement. The bomber would always get through, so no need to escort it. Later combat results proved different and the doctrine was modified.

As for Chennault and his detection system, it was common knowledge that any air defense system would require an early warning system. The British, as we know, pioneered a sophisticated radar and information dissemination system, but many nations including the US understood about early warning. For an interceptor to be effective, it had to have a minimum of 10 minutes of warning of the approach of an enemy bomber formation depending on the climb rate of the defending aircraft. Chennault was an advocate of the dive and climb system. This system, as I explained, required advanced notice. The Curtiss P-40's had a slow climb rate of 2650 feet per minute, which translates to a time to climb to 20000 feet of over 12 minutes. So, they needed that advanced notice. Compare this to a P-38 which could execute a climb to 20000 ft in 7.6 minutes. Figure is for the P-38F

Here is a link to the P-38 Association website with good sounds etc.

http://p38assn.org/index.htm

[old_pop2000]

Hi Larry:

That pretty much tracks with what Martin Caidin details in his book on the P-38 (highly recommended). The late model P-40s did have superchargers and it vastly improved their performance. The same can be said of the late model Wildcats that had bigger engines. A good design can always be upgraded (Spitfire, FW-190, ME-109, Corsair).

Remember that the P-38 had turbochargers but the others had superchargers which are geared off of the engine and extract some performance from the engine to drive them. Your car engine has the same issues, especially with the belt driven air conditioning pump. Turbo's are not driven off of the engine but use the exhaust gases to drive them. Modern racing cars use turbo's, not superchargers. However, dragsters use Gimmie 671 roots blowers or superchargers.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Remember that the P-38 had turbochargers but the others had superchargers which are geared off of the engine and extract some performance from the engine to drive them. Your car engine has the same issues, especially with the belt driven air conditioning pump. Turbo's are not driven off of the engine but use the exhaust gases to drive them. Modern racing cars use turbo's, not superchargers. However, dragsters use Gimmie 671 roots blowers or superchargers.


Dennis:

I'm guessing that the supercharger is either heavier or more complex than a turbocharger?

[old_pop2000]

Dennis:

I'm guessing that the supercharger is either heavier or more complex than a turbocharger?

Not necessarily, the turbo had pipes and an intercooler but had some definite advantages. Its boost was not dependent on the speed of the engine, because it wasn't geared to it. It could use a waste gate to prevent overboost and you did get a little thrust from the turbo. Essentially it was a small jet engine.

However, the ducting on a turbo is a nightmare, especially on the P-38.

http://home.att.net/~C.C.Jordan/index.html - You might like this page, it has lots of good information and articles.

http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/ClimbChart.html - Interesting climb chart showing the difference between a P-51 and a P-38.

[LarryC]

The name of Martin Caiden's book sounds familiar. I've probably read it. Caiden has been a favorite ever since the first of his that I read. I forget the name but it dealt with the flight of 3 B17s from the states to England for a movie. 12'o clock High? Not sure.

lol my 'system' of research is little more than recreational reading over a period of yea.....erm decades. I don't have a library.

[Ed Rotondaro]

The name of Martin Caiden's book sounds familiar. I've probably read it. Caiden has been a favorite ever since the first of his that I read. I forget the name but it dealt with the flight of 3 B17s from the states to England for a movie. 12'o clock High? Not sure.

lol my 'system' of research is little more than recreational reading over a period of yea.....erm decades. I don't have a library.

Larry:

Martin Caidin was one of the great writers on aircraft history. I have several of his books in my library including "Fork Tailed Devil", which covers the P-38, "Samurai" which covers the history of the Zero and the exploits of Saburo Sakai, one of the great aces of WWII. He also authored "Flying Forts". which covered the history of the B-17s and "Thunderbolt" which covered Robert Johnson's WWII experiences. He also wrote two short volumes in the now out of print Ballantines Illustrated History of WWII: "Zero" essentially an abridged version of the above mentioned Samuari and ME-109, a superb look at iconic German fighter.

As a contemporary writer, only Barret Tillman comes close to Caidin regarding aircraft.

[old_pop2000]

Larry:

Martin Caidin was one of the great writers on aircraft history. I have several of his books in my library including "Fork Tailed Devil", which covers the P-38, "Samurai" which covers the history of the Zero and the exploits of Saburo Sakai, one of the great aces of WWII. He also authored "Flying Forts". which covered the history of the B-17s and "Thunderbolt" which covered Robert Johnson's WWII experiences. He also wrote two short volumes in the now out of print Ballantines Illustrated History of WWII: "Zero" essentially an abridged version of the above mentioned Samuari and ME-109, a superb look at iconic German fighter.

As a contemporary writer, only Barret Tillman comes close to Caidin regarding aircraft.

Just an interesting note. In many older movies from the 1960's, 70's possibly the '80's there is an aircraft that is representing an Me-109. That aircraft is an ME-108 Taifun, a two seat sport plane designed before the war by Willi Messerschmidt. The plane was owned by Martin Caiden. He was active in the Confederate Air Force and was a former air intelligence officer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMYpp-b5bUw&feature=related - Movie of one flying.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGy_wY0gNF8&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1UaixpQKUeE&feature=related

[asnrobert]

I recall reading a Martin Caidin novel about 30 years ago (when I was in Junior High, I think). The protagonist was commander of a P-38 squadron (they started out with P-40s), and he flew one that was painted orange and silver, and his nemesis was a Zero pilot that had American flags on his cowling for his kills. At the end of the novel they meet in a 1-to-1 duel and shoot each other down- the American pilot survives, the Japanese pilot dies.

[old_pop2000]

I recall reading a Martin Caidin novel about 30 years ago (when I was in Junior High, I think). The protagonist was commander of a P-38 squadron (they started out with P-40s), and he flew one that was painted orange and silver, and his nemesis was a Zero pilot that had American flags on his cowling for his kills. At the end of the novel they meet in a 1-to-1 duel and shoot each other down- the American pilot survives, the Japanese pilot dies.


One problem with Caiden's work is that he was a science fiction writer by trade and with WW2 research in its infancy at the time of his writings, much has come out to dispel some of the myths he created. His book on the Kursk battle is one. I would read his aviation stuff but then go out and find later books that use more up to date research.

[Mike Malanaphy]

Larry:

Martin Caidin was one of the great writers on aircraft history. I have several of his books in my library including "Fork Tailed Devil", which covers the P-38, "Samurai" which covers the history of the Zero and the exploits of Saburo Sakai, one of the great aces of WWII. He also authored "Flying Forts". which covered the history of the B-17s and "Thunderbolt" which covered Robert Johnson's WWII experiences. He also wrote two short volumes in the now out of print Ballantines Illustrated History of WWII: "Zero" essentially an abridged version of the above mentioned Samuari and ME-109, a superb look at iconic German fighter.

As a contemporary writer, only Barret Tillman comes close to Caidin regarding aircraft.

Hi Ed,

Your gonna make me pull out his books. : ) Grew up reading them, but became more of a naval guy. Have most of his books packed away. One of his best was the "Ragged, Rugged Warriors" about the first 6 months of the Allies against Japan in the air including Java, Burma, China, and Australia.

[old_pop2000]

Hi Ed,

Your gonna make me pull out his books. : ) Grew up reading them, but became more of a naval guy. Have most of his books packed away. One of his best was the "Ragged, Rugged Warriors" about the first 6 months of the Allies against Japan in the air including Java, Burma, China, and Australia.

I have a first edition pocket book of "The Ragged, Rugged Warriors" dated around the late 1966 period by Bantam War Books. I bought it for $1.10 although originally it was $2.95.

As Mike said, I grew up on Ballantine and Bantam war books including Martin Caiden.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Hi Ed,

Your gonna make me pull out his books. : ) Grew up reading them, but became more of a naval guy. Have most of his books packed away. One of his best was the "Ragged, Rugged Warriors" about the first 6 months of the Allies against Japan in the air including Java, Burma, China, and Australia.


Mike:

I remember that book. There was an edition of with line drawings of the aircraft interspersed with the text. Actually I think Caidin did a decent job of describing the combats and the performance of the planes. Obviously there are more detailed accounts, but his work is still readable. I wanted to acquire his book "Flying Forts" which had been re-printed about the same time as his other aerial titles by a company could iBooks. They seem to be out of business apparently.

[Ed Rotondaro]

I have a first edition pocket book of "The Ragged, Rugged Warriors" dated around the late 1966 period by Bantam War Books. I bought it for $1.10 although originally it was $2.95.

As Mike said, I grew up on Ballantine and Bantam war books including Martin Caiden.

Dennis:

While those books may lack the more detailed and objective scholarship of modern publications, they are still entertaining reads. I've got a large collection of Ballantine's Illustrated History of the Violent Century which covers battles, campaigns, weapons, politics etc.

[Mike Malanaphy]

Mike:

I remember that book. There was an edition of with line drawings of the aircraft interspersed with the text. Actually I think Caidin did a decent job of describing the combats and the performance of the planes. Obviously there are more detailed accounts, but his work is still readable. I wanted to acquire his book "Flying Forts" which had been re-printed about the same time as his other aerial titles by a company could iBooks. They seem to be out of business apparently.

Hi Ed,

I believe I had that one too as well as "Black Thursday" about Schweinfurt I and II.

[Jittery]

Back then i doubt that the turbo's & superchargers were inter cooled??

If talking about cars. Another way of driving a supercharger to make it so the loss of power to the engine less comparative to a standard belt driven supercharger or more efficient & you don't have the lag that is associated with a turbo is to have a gearbox driving off the crankshaft that drives the belt to the supercharger(a CVT transmition form a small scotter does this just fine). From this you can always have it spinning at a optimum speed/boost. It also means as the engine speed increases the boost remains the same, thus you don't get a limit on the boost you can run from the supercharger for the upper rev limit as its always a constant. If you really want to get complex you can have a small turbo running off the exhaust feeding the supercharger inter cooler. That gets complex however it gets gains when your chasing horsepower for high performance engines :rolleyes:.

If your not interested in efficiency put a few extra gaskets in to lower the compression ratio & run higher boost :D. We managed to get (consistently) 360-410 kw (500 - 550hp) - out of a 2 litre engine doing this with horsepower & torque all across the rev range. It was so much better than the turbo for down low in that it had usable power from 3,000 rpm to 7,000 rmp (it span higher, but it blew up the one time we used it :mad:). I wish i was still working so i could have rebuilt it and kept rallying :(. That was such a savage car, around 35-40 litres per 100 km's (6-6.5 miles per gallon, tears of sorrow are about to form so i must stop now)

[old_pop2000]

Back then i doubt that the turbo's & superchargers were inter cooled??

...

The NACA had reports as early as 1940 concerning the mathematical analysis of intercooler designs, also in 1942 design analysis was being conducted. The P-38H model had enlarged engine nacelles to handle the new intercoolers however the intercoolers could not handle HP beyond 1150, and the H model engine had over 1600. The J and L models did have intercoolers also. The P-47D had an intercooler as did the Corsair, the FW-190D and the P-51. The B-24D had intercoolers, as did the Merlin MK100. That's just the few I remember.