Warbirds Thread

[bintananth]

I just looked up the P80s range: 1,270 miles without drop tanks. That's London to Berlin and back.

A P51D needed drop tanks to do that.

 

[Buba]

I just looked up the P80s range: 1,270 miles without drop tanks. That's London to Berlin and back.

Is that combat range, ferry range ... ?

 

[bintananth]

Is that combat range, ferry range ... ?

Combat range and a P-80 pilot taking off from London without drop tanks would be able to provide about 10-15 minutes - maximum - of air cover over Berlin.

 

[paulobrito]

That is with these big fuel tanks in the wingtips.

 

[bintananth]

That is with these big fuel tanks in the wingtips.

That's without those big fuel tanks on the wingtips.

BTW: Placing the droppable fuel tanks there lead to an accidental aerodynamic discovery: those big fuel tanks actually reduced drag and improved lift.

 

[Buba]

That's without those big fuel tanks on the wingtips.

BTW: Placing the droppable fuel tanks there lead to an accidental aerodynamic discovery: those big fuel tanks actually reduced drag and improved lift.

So, the great-granddaddy of those turned-up wingtips we see on airliners today?

 

[bintananth]

So, the great-granddaddy of those turned-up wingtips we see on airliners today?

Yup.

 

[Zachowon]

A quick check says that for every A10 ever built there's at least 6-7 F16s.

Well yeah

Er, that isn't the case. The A-10 had a surprising amount of losses to it, be those where the damage needs to replace entire portions of the aircraft or cause the aircraft to land dart. Remember, aircraft -even the A-10- requires at least a better part of a day just to fix some holes (remember, even if the bullets pass through, it doesn't mean that the bullets did something on their pass, things like spall are still a thing you know). The more damage inflicted, the more likely it is written off and cannibalized.

High-speed, high-altitude aircraft tend to die anyway thanks to physics. You're just more likely to have the pilot survive because he can properly eject.

This too. It should also be noted that compared to the A-10's losses (be either requiring significant time in the hanger or outright scrapped), the F-16s had very few losses attributed to it.

There were still LESS A-10s compared to F-16s shot down...

Because other aircraft did the heavy lifting for them. As others have pointed, they suffered considerable losses early on in Iraq, so they changed tactics, for them to be used only in areas where air defense has been neutralised by other aircraft and even then they were mostly used from higher altitude. In Yugoslavia they were pulled back after two were damaged early on and didn't see much action throughout the war.

You do know A-10s were used in searching for the F117 pilot right? And they had to use A-10s over others because of thier low fly speed and the area still had AD.
Did they suffer early losses? I have yet to be shown the A-10s suffering more losses in Iraq over F-16s...
Hell, A-10s are properly used at LOW altitude.

 

[LordSunhawk]

That's because the A-10 suffered far lower losses than the F-16 or any other platform, including early in the conflict, and this was despite the A-10's ROE effectively preventing them from using their planned tactics.

Again, whenever IADS fails to annihilate A-10s like the fast mover mafia predicts it is because it was 'coup proofed' and 'incompetent', if the same IADS takes down F-16s or other fast-movers when operated by the exact same people, it is proof that the A-10 couldn't possibly operate in such a hostile environment with such powerful air defenses.

 

[bintananth]

That's because the A-10 suffered far lower losses than the F-16 or any other platform, including early in the conflict, and this was despite the A-10's ROE effectively preventing them from using their planned tactics.

Again, whenever IADS fails to annihilate A-10s like the fast mover mafia predicts it is because it was 'coup proofed' and 'incompetent', if the same IADS takes down F-16s or other fast-movers when operated by the exact same people, it is proof that the A-10 couldn't possibly operate in such a hostile environment with such powerful air defenses.

The CO of a WWII Panzer unit would be terrified of this:

File:Piper Cub Góraszka (cropped).jpg - Wikimedia Commons

commons.wikimedia.org

65hp and slower than molasses in aircraft terms. Stick a rack of improvized bazookas on one and no Panzer the pilot could see was safe.

I have never owned a car with a less powerful engine or lower top speed than an L-4 Grasshopper.

 

[Buba]

The CO of a WWII Panzer unit would be terrified of this:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:piper_Cub_Góraszka_(cropped).jpg

Now I have to go and listen to Sabaton's Night Bomber Regiment 588 again ...

 

[bintananth]

Now I have to go and listen to Sabaton's Night Bomber Regiment 588 again ...

The Po2 biplanes flown by die Nachthexen had 125hp and were much more heavily armed than the "what the heck, may as well" an L-4 got.

 

[BlackDragon98]

The Germans had a similar aircraft, the Hs 123.

They should have kept up production of that little monster.

 

[bintananth]

The Germans had a similar aircraft, the Hs 123.

They should have kept up production of that little monster.

But, but, but it wasn't a Wunderwaffe. It was boring and practical ... which Nazi Germany seemed to be highly alergic to.

 

[BlackDragon98]

But, but, but it wasn't a Wunderwaffe. It was boring and practical ... which Nazi Germany seemed to be highly alergic to.

The MG-42, K98k, MP-40, Panzer IV, StuG III, Bf 109, Fw 190, Type XI U-Boat, and S-boat would all like to have a quick word with you.

EDIT: the Hs 123 was replaced by the Hs 129, which turned to be absolute shit in terms of performance.

 

[paulobrito]

Jerrycan, Ju-52m3, Fanta also want a word.

 

[Buba]

EDIT: the Hs 123 was replaced by the Hs 129, which turned to be absolute shit in terms of performance.

Not sure if this merits a thread of its own .... could this plane had been made better? More powerful engines, maybe? Anything of suitable size?
The GR14M had not been debugged pre-war, this being finally done with the Hs-129 as living guinea pig.
Could the GR14N be crammed into the plane, or was it too much engine for it?

 

[bintananth]

The MG-42, K98k, MP-40, Panzer IV, StuG III, Bf 109, Fw 190, Type XI U-Boat, and S-boat would all like to have a quick word with you.

One of my big sisters has a G98. She does not think highly of it and the K98k she has is something she thinks is even worse.

 

[Bacle]

Well, that's one way to use the Zero's light weight to give it new life in another form.

 

[bintananth]

Well, that's one way to use the Zero's light weight to give it new life in another form.

Were they incapable of making an NACA airfoil? Here's what the Zero had:

- wingroot: NACA 2315
- wingtip: NACA 3309