Anyone who has followed this incredible channel for for longer than 5 minutes knows Gregg is the epitomy of honesty and intelligence ... keep it up mate and to hell with the haters.😊
As for his aeroplane content ,I've been enjoying it for a lot longer than 5 minutes, more like 20 minutes, I'm a new subscriber and I have been watching his muscle car videos ,and as a lifelong fan of fighter planes this channel suits me perfectly (if it also included vintage dirt bikes that would be awsome ) . It's going to be good to watch all his prior plane videos. My father served in the RNZAF in WW2 in the Pacific ,as a side gunner in Catalina's, and sometimes in Mitchell bombers .As a kid I enjoyed his recollections of seeing P38's , Kittyhawks, Corsairs, Airacobra's etc .Luckily for him ,he was not involved in any combat ,the enemy never reached where he was stationed, that would have changed though if Midway didn't turn out like it did. Also I'd like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the recent passing of Sir Tim Wallis , the New Zealand Warbirds collector and founder of " Warbirds over Wanaka ", RIP Tim.
Greg is the muthufuckin man. I’d trust this guy with my life. He’s that ethical, honest, and thorough. His exposure of the bomber mafia and the great lie they perpetuated was a masterful piece of detective work. He would have made a terrific judge, lawyer, or police detective.
Yeah this channel is so well done and researched.. one of my favorites… but the real reason I came here was to laugh at the cringy , almost creepy comments you guys leave. You didn’t disappoint. Good grief you guys are cringe , like that one by Caleb 😂
Jimmy Doolittle was also an accomplished engineer. He even held a Doctorate in Aerospace Engineering. Doolittle was the first to do an IFR takeoff and landing, the first to do an outside loop, famous air racer, and helped standardize high octane fuel in the US, among many other accomplishments. He did not need Eric Browns help nor the British help in general. If he needed help, he had access to NACA and the aircraft manufacturers.
I have no problem whatsoever calling Eric Brown a liar, absolutely none, especially when the subject he'd be talking about had ANYTHING to do with America, in that regard that man lied so much he forgot what the truth was, I quit watching interviews with him after watching one where he claimed to have first hand knowledge that in the 50's the US secretly assembled and flew that piece of junk Horten flying wing, he made up that lie just so he could say "And it's a shame that it wasn't flown by a 'proper' test pilot because the opportunity to learn so much from it was lost". What a bunch of crap, it's very well known that nobody in the US ever flew that hot mess, no test pilot in the world would even attempt to fly that death trap, the workmanship in it isn't anywhere near aircraft grade from them changing things as it was being built making them cut things apart and having to be rewelded, people who know what they're looking at have said there's not a test pilot worth their salt would approve that thing to fly after looking at it. Other lies Brown has told as a way of poking America in the eye was his nonsense claim that he saw Adolf Hitler shake Jessie Owens' hand at the 36 Olympics, the entire world knows that Adolf Hitler got up and walked out of the 36 Olympics because Owens embarrassed his master race nonsense, and anyone that believes Adolf Hitler would have shook a black man's hand is delusional, the reason Brown made that lie up about supposedly seeing Hitler shake his hand in secret is because he knows it's an embarrassing thing for America that FDR didn't invite Owens to the White House like all other gold metal athletes, so he figured he'd say Hitler shook his hand just to make 1936 America look even worse. I don't think I ever watched a single interview of his where he didn't tell some kind of a lie about America in it, so yea, I have no problem calling him a liar whatsoever.
He's also the only reason high-octane aviation fuel was available in large amounts when it was needed. He pressed Shell into developing the process for making 100 octane fuel when the "experts" said there was no need for the much more expensive process.
Other videos, I have heard nothing but praise for severely wings strength, also any type of report would have needed to be forwarded to NACA Langley to evaluate and update Wright field to place in those manuals.
@@TheAneewAony He preferred it because of it's low fuel consumption, he had to gas up thousands of bombers and fighter's, and wherein fuel never really was a supply issue Jimmy Doolittle wasn't psychic, he couldn't see into the future and tell there wasn't going to be some kind of surprise German U-boat campaign that would seriously cut down on the supply of high octane fuel from America, P38's had the range to escort bombers anywhere they went but they had two of the same engine that the P51 had, you don't have to have a PHD in in mathematics to know what that means, the P47, well using it for escort was about the same as taking a drag car on a cross country vacation as far as fuel consumption goes. When Doolittle took command of the 8th Air Force in January of 44 victory in Europe in just over a year certainly wasn't a given, one of his considerations was stretching out fuel as much as he could, he was a smart guy and only a dummy wouldn't think about that, he did the math, he knew how many more P51's he could put in the sky with a given amount of fuel than he could with other fighter's he had at his disposal.
On the cockpit ergonomics, flying the F6F in MSFS was a real revelation. The plane just wants to fly and at cruise speeds is really easy to fly hands off. It struck me, given the long flight times and strict navigation requirements, a plane that is easy to cruise would have a real practical advantage over aircraft that had higher performance, but would exhaust the pilots during ingress and egress. And that is likely a big contributor to why it's reputation seems higher than its raw performance numbers would imply.
Hi Greg, My flight instructor was a P38 pilot/ace in the Mediterranean. Before he was sent out there, while he was based in England they had him fly an early P-47 to have him give his ideas on how they would use the jug in the air. On this flight after he had climbed to high altitude during his testing, he split essed from up high to RTB.. In the dive he did not recover in time to avoid compressibility, he almost didn't recover. And in the recovery due to the speed and G load he placed on this jug. He rejected the airframe. The wings had an extra 4 degrees of dihedral, rivets were popped, fairings and antenna had been ripped from the plane. Andy Rooney wrote of this in stars and stripes. Look up Col.Herb Ross.
@@topmenace funny how the arguably best American fighter group retained the p47 until the of the war.....and the 8th wasn't the only American air force in Europe. The p51 didn't even show up in numbers until post d day and after the cream of the luftwaffe had been taken out. The need then was tor front line support and interdiction at which the P47's were vastly superior .
Interesting. As far as Jimmy Doolittle desperately needing British help on Aerodynamics calculations and testing, the man had a PhD in Aeronautical Engineering from MIT. He was a world renowned and innovative test pilot. Its bit of a stretch to see him going hat in hand pleading for help from the British on matters he was arguably the worlds foremost expert on.
Eric Brown was a shameless self promoter. The claims that the Army Air Corps/Force required the assistance of the British to evaluate aircraft is absolute nonsense. Note that you only hear that from some twit claiming that the Spitfire is the only competent piston/prop fighter of the war.
When an order comes down from a very high level, every layer of command has an opportunity to help their boss looks good and tend to make the most of it, so you get a strange form of the "telephone" game. I think Greg has the right of it here. Doolittle says he'd love to see the numbers => Hey, the famous American guy is interested in our numbers go get them => Gen Doolittle says he needs our help! => ... => It is urgent that we do our utmost to save the Americans by providing them with this data! This is a very normal thing in a chain of command (especially a military one) and it's not even a bad thing, as it motivates people to deliver. But while in the USAF, many times been told I was "red-balling" some urgent thing for some important officer only to find that it was a routine request, just one that originated from a high place.
Re: "mine shells," I'm still not convinced that the German mine shells were specifically an anti-Soviet technology, for three reasons. First and foremost is the question of timing. It's not just that the Luftwaffe introduced these shells in 1940, it's that they had to be designed and put into production at some point before they were introduced into service - and until about mid-1940, armor in aircraft was virtually unheard of. So at the time these explosives-heavy shells (and the guns to fire them) were being developed, the Luftwaffe expectation would have been that they'd be as effective against the thin aluminum of Western Allied tactical aircraft in 1940 as they would be against the thin aluminum of four-engine heavy bombers in 1943. Second, it should be kept in mind that the Luftwaffe (along with the rest of the Wehrmacht, and everyone else in Germany, and most other people around the world) only expected Operation Barbarossa to take six weeks, or eight at most, before the USSR was forced to capitulate just as France had been. Changing over the primary armament of the entire fighter force to a new gun with new, incompatible ammunition, just to secure a marginal advantage in a campaign that was expected to last well under three months sounds like too much of a logistical nightmare even for Nazi Germany. Third and finally, the one air force that _was_ developing a tactical aircraft that was designed from the ground up to carry significant armor was the USSR with the Il-2, as you've previously discussed. It's possible that the Luftwaffe didn't know anything about this aircraft, which would still have been in the prototype stage (on the one hand, the Heer has plenty of reports of German tankers being unpleasantly surprised by T-34s and KV-1s; on the other hand, Germany and the USSR were more-or-less allied at the time and AFAIK there was a significant amount of spying going on between them), but in any case it would be deeply ironic if the Germans developed a specialty armament for their fighters just to counter wooden aircraft, only to meet Il-2s in the skies. Re: Eric Brown, I mostly disregard anything he said that can't be corroborated elsewhere - just as I do anything else in any other memoir that can't be corroborated. At best, it's important to remember that his opinions are just that: _his opinions._ And in the case of his post-war books, and especially his interviews, the simple fact of time's passage means his recollections (as with anyone's) cannot be trusted. (This isn't to say that memoirs have no value as history - they can be very good, even irreplaceable, for capturing the "feel" of events, the mood among participants. But as sources of objective historical fact, they are at best limited to what the diarist can piece together from a combination of notes made at the time they're writing about, and unreliable memory filling in the gaps in those notes.) And that's the best case, working on the assumption that Brown was doing his best to be a perfect paragon of unbiased objectivity, rather than being a major pro-British chauvinist - the latter of which appears to be a more accurate characterization.
That is an interesting thought on the mine shells. On the one hand the Nazi’s were planning on going east all along so designing shells to take out soviet aircraft long before the actual assault makes sense. On the gripping hand they did assume it would be a very short war so why bother as you mentioned. The only reason I can think of would be that it would be to aide in the first massive strike and that they would end the war faster than using the conventional shells. However your point regarding the Allies aircraft grade aluminum sheeting is well taken so my ultimate guess would be that there were multiple reasons for their development and implementation.
Yeah, exactly. And actually before protected tanks came biggest treat for planes under fire was well - fire. Planes was really easily catching fire - that is why self-sealing tanks and inert gas systems was really big deal. And hing explosive shells perfect to do that damage.
Big H always intended to go east, looong before the war actually kicked of. His book (avoiding the names for youtube reasons) said as much in the 20s. As to expecting a fast war with the USSR, Germany didn't expect a fast war until France collapsed as fast as it did. Most of their generals at the time said that what happened in France was a fluke, they got lucky, and it shouldn't have happened, and then they learned the wrong lessons, and charged straight at Moscow despite big H's preference to pursue the Caucus oil fields. Yeah, Germany did some espionage, but they were one of the worst at it of the WWII players, and during their friendly times with USSR, Russia's air force would have been even more heavily wood-based. So absolutely think Greg's reasoning here is sound.
Il-2 was mostly made of wood, it had armored "bathtub" only for engine and pilot. MiG-3 had similar ratio of metal and wooden surfaces. But in late 30's soviet airforce was mostly aluminium. Not fighters of course, but bombers like SB-2 and later Pe-2 and Yer-2 were all aluminium. On the other hand, Germans clashed with Soviet planes in Spain way before WW2. I think Germans developed minengeschoß with no specific reason, they just thought it was more effective anti-aircraft ammo overall.
I'm one of the people who brought up Eric Brown's comment regarding the use of P-51s for high altitude bomber escort due to mach number. It wasn't a criticism, The anecdote just came to mind while you were talking on the subject and I didn't see any mention of it after a quick look in the comment section. I completely agree with your interpretation. He was clearly mistaken as I think he says that the US changed exclusively to P-51s for that role after his report, but that was not the case. He was a great pilot and ambassador but nobody is perfect and he would have been focussed on other things at that time.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles In my defence, I think I saw your video early in its lifetime!!! And I'm glad you did talk about it again because I enjoy watching your WW2 aviation videos as well as your DCS escapades.
The purchase price and operating cost, especially in fuel, of the P51 was much lower than the P47. That likely had a big effect on which was chosen. One chart that I saw had the purchase price in 1943 of the P51 was about $58.8K whereas the P47 as about $104K. Prices of both dropped somewhat the next year, but the P47 was still considerably more expensive.
"The purchase price and operating cost, especially in fuel, of the P51 was much lower than the P47." Indeed. However, the P-47 is easily worth it. The P-51 did well in part because it never had to face truly serious opposition. In some ways, you might say that it was the next generation of TYPE of fighter up from the Zero. Very good in some ways, but achieving that through tradeoffs that were NOT a good thing when outside its comfort zone. In particular, the durability of the planes is like night and day, the P-51 was lightweight high performance, while the P-47 was highperformance but absolutely nowhere close to lightweight. Hits that would cause the P-51 to drop like a fly flying through flames, the P-47 would generally shrug off barely noticing them. Facing strong opposition, the P-47 would be vastly superior, as you would take distinctly less losses than P-51s would. While against weak opposition, where serious losses are unlikely, the P-51 is dramatically more affordable, allowing you to field more of them which in turn increases the chance of overwhelming the enemy by numbers and reducing losses even more. Personally, i would take the P-47 every time, but the P-51 has its own values.
@@DIREWOLFx75 " *Hits that would cause the P-51 to drop like a fly flying through flames, the P-47 would generally shrug off barely noticing them.* " During Corea they compared P51 and F4U Corsairs. You'd think that an air-cooled Corsair would prove to be much more durable, big plane and all. It wasn't. I don't know about the P47, but I suspect that the real life vulnerability would be, at the very least, much closer than the legend has it. " *Personally, i would take the P-47 every time* " There were people who switched from Spitfires to P-47. Granted, it's a rather drastic switch, but it definitely took some adjustment to like their new birds. Switching from a Spit to a Mustang in general went without much of a hassle. From my point of view: P-47 has a crowd of diehard fans, who are willing to excuse each and every shortcoming of this plane. I think no other WWII bird has similar following. Sure, people do love other planes too, and it's likely that every good warbird has maybe even higher following. Some people love faulty warbirds, but they tend to be well aware of the shortcoming of the design which stroke their fancy. The P-47 crowd? It's like you guys soar to new heights! Which is fitting, because that's were P-47 truly shone the brightest! ;-)
@@bakters "P-47 has a crowd of diehard fans" Sorry, but i'm not part of that. I just appreciate it for its good sides. "During Corea they compared P51 and F4U Corsairs. You'd think that an air-cooled Corsair would prove to be much more durable, big plane and all. It wasn't." I don't actually know about the Corsair, but i know that the P-47 was compared to the TBF Avenger in regards to taking damage and still keep on flying. And the Avenger held the informal record for taking most number of hits and still flying for a looong time. IIRC, the recordholder was an Avenger from the battle of Midway, where one managed to limp back to base with literally hundreds of holes in it from anything from standard 25mm IJN AA to 7mm MG shots from Zero's. So yeah, THAT is the kind of reputation for durability the P-47 ended up competing with. While the P-51, about the kindest said about its lack of durability is that it's even more fragile than a Spitfire. Basically, a single 20mm hit on a P-51 usually either missionkilled it or shot it down. A P-47 was essentially never lost to something so "minor".
@@DIREWOLFx75 " *A P-47 was essentially never lost to something so "minor".* " And we know it, because? Survivor bias is a thing. For example, the Hurricane also gathered a reputation of coming back with substantial damage and was believed to be more durable than at least the Spit. Upon more careful analysis, it turned out that the Spit was more durable. I mean, let's be real. A jug was a thin-skinned, single engined fighter, not a flying tank. The pilot was not protected from most angles, so technically even a single 30cal bullet could down the plane, and I suspect it might even happen at some point. The engine was not armored, and because if was an aviation engine, it was built as light as they could. Yes, it was a big engine, but it mostly makes it a big target. Actually, that's all that P-47 had going for him. It was a big plane, so there was a chance that a shot will hit "the plane", yet somehow miss anything of vital importance. That was more likely to happen when shot directly from behind with small caliber weapons. All those turbos were not critical. Apart from that, it was an air-cooled and lightly built plane, just like A6M2, only bigger.
Let it go Gregg, Most subscribers love what you are doing and applicate the time and lengths you go to to give the facts to the best of your available knowledge , I would say it is impossible to avoid the type of people who like nothing better than to criticise . keep up the good work and keep doing what you are have been up to now and work on a percentage basis , if 99.9 % are liking you content then you cannot be going far wrong .👌
I agree, let it go. I'm not saying I could but you should :). You always express your opinion and then the facts you used to arrive there and that's enough.
Greg, it appears that your topics, the quality and quantity of your output, and your humility and interest in citing sources to back your conclusions has, and this is a bit baffling, attracted the attention of some personality-disordered narcissists. Your description of how at least one of them, when refuted by citations and facts, will slyly attempt to change the topic, is textbook. Such defective persons will never admit wrongdoing and error, take pleasure in bullying behavior, and exploit pro-social gatherings to call attention to themselves, and to cause suffering. Your response, too, is near textbook: refute them with facts and citations, so that other readers know these narcissists and disordered individuals are wrong, and move on. Such creatures are best denied the one thing they crave: attention of any kind, and admiration.
Just discovered your channel today and OMG it's awesome! I'm a huge WWII fan so your videos on WWII fighters have been very interesting! You are amazing at explaining things clearly and concisely!
I would be very interested in a video all about Jimmy Doolittle, most of the stuff here on TH-cam is all about the famous Tokyo raid and not his career afterwards. He’s one of those figures who pops up a lot in American aviation and it would nice to hear his full story from a biographical perspective.
His autobio ("I Could Never Be So Lucky Again") is a really remarkable book. No good way to tell for sure, but it feels like an extremely honest account (at least with respect to himself-- he would absolutely paint things in a way that made his country and his troops look better).
Greg, I wouldn’t worry about others and if they say negative things. You are fact base and able to demonstrate this with DCS and original documentation. My feeling is you are willing to consider other views, and it is to enjoy cars and airplanes. Great stuff!
Captain Eric Brown was a fantastic source of information. He flew more aircraft variants than anyone alive, by some margin. As such, it would be foolish, in our part, to expect him to be correct in every single statement that he made. Although he had a very sharp mind, even up until his very last days, he was still a human being, and no human being was or will ever be infallible. Numbers can get mixed up, aircraft variants can be confused, or it can be down to something as simple as misspeaking. So, for any source, be it Eric Brown or anybody else, it should always be compared with other sources, be put into context, and consider its potential fallibility.
I agree, I have a lot of respect for him. He went through some really tough times in the war, especially after his carrier was sunk and he had to survive at sea. His flying exploits really are the stuff of legend, but he is after all human.
Hey Greg, while the MGFF could not fire minengeschoss, while the MGFF/M could fire it, but not fire the regular rounds, the regular rounds were altered to work in the MGFF/M. And the MG-151/20 could fire both from the start, to my knowledge. Several historical belts include the 'heavier' AP alongside the 'light' minengeschoss.
The MG FF fired a 134g explosive-tracer shell and the same shell without explosive filler as a practice round that could also penetrate armor and poke holes into fuel tanks. To make it compatible with the MG FF/M they changed the fuze to one that weight merely 10g instead of 27g, resulting in 115-117g shells, that could be fired together with the ~90g Mineshells. Since the Mineshell delivered destruction by blast, the explosive-tracer was changed to an explosive-incendiary shell. The same shell was later modified to be just an incendiary shell by removing explosive and detonator to make it only carry incendiary mixture.
Unfortunately Saint Eric Brown, whilst undoubtably a great test pilot, did have a massive ego and was a little full of his own self-importance. He wasn't beyond embellishing a story. The recently released biography, 'Winkle' by Paul Beaver, is a very good insight into the personality of a man he knew very well.
Just about everything that came out of Browns mouth that had to do with America was a jealousy based lie, massive ego wasn't his only problem, he had a jealous streak in him a mile wide, he spent the rest of his life never being able to get over the fact that it was an American pilot who was the first to break the sound barrier and not him, so like a child in a fit of rage he spent the rest of his life telling lies about America supposedly having stolen how to do it from the British, he was a little child.
When I first discovered Eric Brown books of his impressions of various aircraft, I thought they were great comparisons. But at some point, it seemed like about the first thing he mentioned on any American plane was how excessively roomy the cockpit was, and it seemed to color everything else he had to say about those planes. His love of the Spitfire was obvious, and I have no doubt it was a great plane. But there are different models, different roles, different opposition, and no plane is best in everything. It's been a long time since I read any of his books, maybe being American colors my views as much as his being British colors his views. But as you say, Saint Brown has worn out his welcome in my to-read shelves. The few times I have read his reports since, I pay attention only to the most obvious objective remarks and discount everything else as poorly presented opinion.
I don't know if my father had ever heard of Eric Brown till much later, and I honestly don't know when he heard about him but there are a couple of things. 1) I didn't recognise my father in a group of 3 people in RAF uniform against a backdrop of trees. He pointed himself out and I did not understand, he was so thin. He did not resemble himself and he would be about 20 or more. 2) As far as I can gather most of his work was on bombers although he mentioned a spitfire being polished for photo reconisance work. 3) He described the American cockpits as being very roomy. Perhaps it is all a matter of expectations.
@@Trashcansam123 Yes, wherein the massive ego thing would be a good comparison between the two Chuck Yeager didn't spend the rest of his life writing books and giving interviews telling one lie after the other about England like Brown did about America, he was a compulsive liar when it came to America, I'm not talking about American aircraft, I'm talking about his nonsense claims like having seen Adolf Hitler shake Jessie Owens' hand, tell that to any historian and they'll probably die of laughter right in front of you, the entire world knows that Hitler got up and walked out of the 36 Olympics when Owens was crossing finish lines and setting records because it publicly embarrassed Hitler after all his talk about the Aryian race being supreme, the reason Brown made that claim is because he knows it's an embarrassing thing for America that FDR didn't invite Owens to the White House like all other gold metal athletes do, so he figured if he could convince people that Hitler shook Owens' hand that really makes FDR and America look bad. Other lies I've heard him tell is the nonsense claim that he had it on good authority that the Horten Flying Wing was assembled in secret in America in the 50's and test flown, which he followed up by saying that "it was a shame that it wasn't flown by a 'proper' test pilot because so much could have been learned from it", another far fetched tale that he made up so he could throw that little jab about test pilots in it implying America doesn't have any of his caliber, what a joke, he didn't even have a degree in anything, and the whole world knows that piece of junk Horten disaster never flew, the workmanship in it is not anything close to being airworthy from them continually cutting things apart and rewelding them when they were building the pile of crap, no test pilot in the world would have gotten in that thing after inspecting it, it's a death trap that'd kill anyone who tried flying it just like their previous one did, the Hotens weren't advanced enough to understand the unique things needed to control a flying wing which is why their test pilots died. But his biggest lie has to be his claim that Jimmy Doolittle ask him to solve "problems with US aircraft", oh god that man was a liar, right, Jimmy Doolittle who had a doctorate in aeronautics, the first man to fly an all instrumental flight, first man to perform an outside loop, one of the greatest pioneers in aviation who also had the entire resources of the USAAF and NACA at his disposal went to Eric Brown to ask him for help, a man with no degree in anything, what a laugh that is. Yea, far worse than Yeager.
PPS. Great Video! About Eric Brown and his 60 Lbs. figure of force on the stick. The guys who worked on the Goodyear Aerospace Simulator Dome in Taif, KSA, also reached the same conclusions and at least three of the instructor pilots were WW-II aces and claimed that they could do things that others could not. None of them flew P-51s IRL. (2X P-47s and 1X P-38.) I love watching your videos because they bring back so many great memories from way back when. Keep up the good work.
I took tactical Mach limit as the speed at which you can still effectively maneuver the aircraft before all your efforts are focused on just recovery doe to the aircraft reaching its critical Mach limit but thank you for bringing that up to people
I understood this non-objective term to mean the same thing. But, they don't define it anywhere. Other that in the phrase itself. "Beyond which it is no longer useful for tactics".
Greg, I have followed you for quite sometime now. I have learned a wealth of in depth knowledge about some of my favorite planes with the best when you do comparisons. I’ve also had the opportunity to own two of your shirt designs. I think you cover some things to the finest detail as possible when able to. The work/narration involved shows the effort you put into each video presentation.
Greg I am very happy to have found your channel. I really have enjoyed your videos and I like watching the DCS gameplay. I’ve just gotten back into flight sims and predominantly fly IL2, and love the Jug. I will eventually get into DCS.
Was so happy to see a new extended length video was available for my flight from Melbourne to Perth this evening by Greg. Cannot express my gratitude enough in words. Signed, a long term patreon.
So, I learned not only the limitations of specific aircraft today, but also the limitations of books and authors. I think we have similar personalities. I try to state as accurately as possible what I know to be true, or give my estimates of how far I could be off, and I don't like being misquoted or have my caveats left out. In other words, I am a conscientious person who is more often than not correct. So, I sympathize with your responses to the criticism you get. I hope you get the sense that many others on this channel feel the same way. We greatly appreciate your diligence in creating excellent and accurate content. BTW, great shooting in DCS. I am glad you are on our side.
MiG-25's speed is limited by heat from the aerodynamic drag, and at altitude depends of the metheorogical and regional conditions, that were sometimes very favorable above Egypt and Israel. MiG-25R that was clocked M3.2 over Sinai was piloted by a test pilot. He got the order "from above" to disregard instruction from the MiG buerau monitoriing team about Mach limit. Engines WERE removed, but for inspection.
What? A WWII veteran with a large ego made a post-war self-aggrandizing claim that contradicts all other primary sources? Wow, I've never heard that one before.
I have not read into the topic too much. So take it with a grain of salt. But I have "dealt" with the topic since I am flying flight sims for now almost 10 years. But my personal interpretation is that the germans would have gone with mine shells in either case because they found or thought mineshells are more effective against any air target. Regardless of construction. While metal is less prone to HE damage, a HE hit still leaves large holes (much larger than the projectiles diameter) and causes heavy aerodynamic damage (they also added a incendiary component). On top of that the rifle calibre and heavy machine gun armament (7.9mm and later 13mm) and as mainly amour piercing capabilities. But even in the case of the 13mm they still added HE filler to the belts. The MK 151 belts also contained an AP projectile every X shot.(I believe every 3rd) I think there was even a change of doctrine later in the war to remove AP from cannon belts and add in more HEI. The trend to add more HE(I) to the german armament basically went on until the end of the war. And this also happened on the western front. Indicating that wooden planes were not the main thought. Even tho a higher effectiveness against an IL-2 was certainly welcome.
Greg,your doing a great job! How refreshing it is to hear someone that knows his history,knows his aircraft. Republic Aviation produced the best aircraft that did all the hard work and won wars Republic Aviation rules My father flew 139 missions in the F-105 flying two tours and a IP in the F-105 in between.He loved that jet.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles I totally get the allure of the presentation styled video, but your channel is pretty eclectic: by design, it feels. Personally, I think that the fact that you enjoyed making it should be the focus of your channel! (because it shows and that's engaging content, even if unexpected at first...)
Oh I can't wait to get a load of the angry authors part, this should be good, and I have the feeling it's going to anger fans of certain authors. Fun fact about ME109's I just uncovered, the first one ever shot down was by an American, Frank Glasgow Tinker ex US Navy pilot flying for the Republicans during the Spanish Civil War, and he was also the first one to shoot down more than 1 although not consecutively, someone else shot one down between his 1st and 2nd ones. Tinker was hanging around with Ernest Hemingway during the Spanish Civil War and afterwards wrote a book about his experiences called Some Still Live, critics who like Hemingway say it's a good read and very much in Hemingway's style, during the war Tinker drew maps of the locations of the airstrips used by the Republicans and Nationalists along with other information not recorded by anyone else, his book is considered to be the best source of information about the air war due to lack of official documentation by either side and historians consider it to be the best source of reference material when doing research about the air war aspect of the Spanish Civil War, I'm getting it next to read. Speaking of angry people I just got done reading Tommy Blackburn's book Jolly Rogers, Blackburn was the commander of VF-17, they were one of the first two units carrier qualified with the F4U in early 43 and they were who worked directly with Vought to improve the F4U resulting in the F4U-1A, his book covers the real reason why the F4U was removed from carrier service which had nothing to do with it being too difficult to land on carrier's, not for US Navy pilots anyway, it was because in his words the F4U was "over engineered" leading half of them to constantly being deadlined, that coupled with a shortage of spare parts and even worse a shortage of qualified maintenance crews prompted the Navy to remove it from carrier service in favor of the much simpler engineered and far easier to maintain F6F that didn't have a shortage of spare parts and qualified maintenance crews like the F4U did, apparently the Navy felt a plane that half were usually deadlined that had a lack of spare parts and maintenance crews wasn't the best choice for a carrier aircraft, imagine that. The reason they were returned to carrier service was because in June of 1944 the Japanese launched their Kamikaze campaign in ernest, the thought that a single explosive laden plane could possibly sink a ship or at least kill hundreds of men had the Navy return the F4U to carrier service because of it's climb rate of over 4,200 ft per minute compared to the F6F's 3,600 ft per minute rate along with it's faster top speed, the thinking being that a squadron of F4U's would be put on each Essex class carrier, and in the event of a Kamikaze attack the F4U's would launch first and using their superior climb rate and speed intercept the incoming Kamikaze's with F6F's launching behind them to intercept any that made it through the F4U's, by the time they were returned to carrier service there was no longer shortages of qualified maintenance crews and spare parts. That's the real story behind why the Navy removed the F4U from carrier service then returned it later, not the common fairytale about US Navy pilots supposedly not being able to land their own airplane on their own carrier's until someone came along and taught them how, just because someone in a pub made that claim one day or some aviation writer who knew his target audience would love hearing a story like that put it in a book of his years ago and it caught on because it conveniently fits over a timeline of events doesn't make it true, there's no evidence to support it beyond "We say so", wherein the real story is supported by documented facts like written orders by the Navy's ComAirLand department responsible for all Navy aircraft explaining why F4U's were to be removed from carrier service. I just love facts that bust bedtime story myths, especially myths created by people taking credit for something they have no right to, and it's fun watching the smug drain right out of the sails of people who gleefully spread myths like that all over the place.
QUOTE: "That's the real story behind why the Navy removed the F4U from carrier service then returned it later, not the common fairytale about US Navy pilots supposedly not being able to land their own airplane on their own carrier's until someone came along and taught them how [....] there's no evidence to support it beyond "We say so", wherein the real story is supported by documented facts like written orders by the Navy's ComAirLand department responsible for all Navy aircraft explaining why F4U's were to be removed from carrier service." I haven't read anywhere that the Corsair was bumped from USN carrier service for a period because aviators couldn't safely land the beast on a carrier - but it was definitely delayed from initial carrier service for a host of reasons including a nasty tendency to drop the left wing during landing - all major problems solved one by one. Do you have an authoritative source that makes that claim or are you referring to internet forums etc? Through reading over many years I understood that the true narrative is exactly as you've presented it - a mixture of reasons to do with logistics & practicality. Regarding the Corsair curving landing approach - this was first used by the RN FAA because they already used that exact landing approach with the Seafire [which has a long V12 nose] - I think it's true that the USN picked up this tip from the RN as they'd used the deadly straight on approach. The straight on method: the FAA fliers were taught this in training in the USA. I think it's correct to say that there was a cross pollination between the USN & the Senior Service. :) I've just found this in the SMITHSONIAN AIR & SPACE MAGAZINE. Cory Graff. June 2021. [...] Despite more hair-raising attempts to make the Corsair carrier-ready, conducted by Navy squadrons VF-12 and VF-17, most of the original aircraft found a home in Marine Corps combat squadrons flying from - and more importantly, landing on - island bases. Over time, Vought engineers and men in the field implemented upgrades to the promising but troubled fighter. Greater air pressure in the airplane’s landing gear oleo easily eliminated much of the pronounced bounce. For a better view from the cockpit, designers replaced the “birdcage” canopy with a frameless clear “bubble.” The additional head space allowed the pilot’s seat to be raised by eight inches. An improved F4U-1A was in the Pacific with the Marines in the summer of 1943. But it was the British Royal Navy’s Fleet Air Arm who came up with the concept that brought Corsairs to sea duty for good. The pilots developed a long, curving landing approach to keep the carrier’s deck in sight until the last moments before touchdown[...]
@@rich7787 Yea, the narrative that they'd wanted all along to use it on carrier's but had to wait until someone showed them how to land them on carrier's doesn't make any sense, why would they have been chomping at the bit to replace F6F's that had a kill to loss ratio of 19 to 1 with the F4U that had an 11 to 1 ratio? When you hold that story that's always been going around up to facts it falls apart, before I even read Blackburn's book I searched high and low for confirmation of it, I couldn't find one written order for a US Navy pilot or unit to report somewhere to be trained by them, not one single US Navy pilot that either says they went somewhere to be trained or even one that verify's the story even though 2nd hand knowledge of it, not a single picture of a US Navy pilot with those who supposedly showed the Navy how to do it or a single film of a US Navy F4U landing on a carrier using their technique, every landing film I looked at showed them being landed using the same method they used for every other aircraft they landed on carrier's during WW2 which is exactly how Blackburn describes how they landed them in his book, as soon as they'd pass the carrier on the downwind leg with their gear and flaps down they'd count to 30 seconds, then turn to the left and straighten out lining up with the carrier (which put them more than 30 seconds behind the carrier since while they flew for 30 seconds after passing it it'd been steaming forward), at about 200 yards from the carrier's stern they'd quit flying the aircraft themselves and start taking control input commands from the LSO who could be seen to the left of the nose despite the nose blocking the view of the deck, not being able to see the deck made no difference since the way they did it with every other aircraft was the same, you shouldn't be watching the deck anyway you're supposed to be watching the LSO, he's the one whose flying the airplane at that point anyway. VF-17 had carrier qualified on the converted steamship USS Charger in the Chesapeake Bay in the first month's of 1943 after being formed on January 1st, while getting qualified Vought sent people to work directly with VF-17 to work on improving the F4U which resulted in the F4U-1A, Vought promised them that they'd receive the very first F4U-1A's produced, after being carrier qualified they were assigned to the brand new Essex class carrier USS Bunker Hill, the two did their work up together in the Gulf of Paria just off the coast of Trinidad, after returning to Norfolk as promised by Vought there were brand new F4U-1A's waiting for them, before departing the skipper told Blackburn something he'd been fearing all along knowing that the F4U was a high maintenance aircraft that left them with half of them deadlined all the time, the skipper told him he'd been informed by the Admiral that all F4U's were to be removed from carrier service and that all carrier qualified squadrons were to be checked out on the F6F as replacements, but he told Blackburn that he'd had a talk with the Admiral and the two of them agreed that since VF-17 had worked so hard on making the F4U into a carrier capable fighter that if Blackburn felt they could keep them then he'd see what he could do, Blackburn told him in absolutely certain terms that VF-17 felt that the F4U was the best aircraft for them, so the skipper talked to the Admiral and he gave them permission to deploy with them, so VF-17 left Norfolk with their new F4U-1A's on the Bunker Hill bound for the Solomon Islands Campaign, but unfortunately it wasn't over yet, when they put in at Pearl Harbor for provisions they were informed that ComAirLand had sent written orders that all F4U's were to be removed from carrier service citing the lack of spare parts and qualified maintenance crews as the reason, with that there was nothing the Admiral could do for them, it was out of his hands. At Pearl Harbor VF-17 was removed from the Bunker Hill and replaced with an F6F squadron, they were then loaded onto another carrier that transported them to the Solomon's where they occupied the island airstrip on Espiritu Santo. By the time they left Espiritu Santo and after just 76 days of combat VF-17 emerged the most successful F4U unit in history with 154.5 aerial victories credited to them and another 27 probably destroyed and 25 damaged, yea right, that sounds like a bunch of guy's who couldn't figure out how to land their own aircraft on their own carrier's and had to have someone else show them how to do it, what a bunch of malarkey that fairytale is.
That's all very interesting. I will be very curious how this is accepted even if you are correct and there really are no true sources regarding them being too difficult to land. One thing that comes to my mind is that if the Corsair had a tendency to drop a left wing then it seems like a left curving approach would make it worse as the left wing is inside the turn and has slower air moving over it. Thus, it would tend to stall faster. I almost wonder if the leading edge mods were made after the curved approach was found to be preferred. One thing I've noticed is that mentioning Greg's work elsewhere seems to get a lot of people worked up. It's very interesting how vile some get. Yet, no one ever cites a real source to contradict him. Just more cliche.
Only the F4U-4 had over 4200 fpm in climb rate (appearing in 1945, barely a WWII type). At 3600 the F6F likely climbed better than the F4U-1d, which I remember as capable of not much above 2400 or 3000 fpm at the very most... The -4 was a massive step up in climb from earlier variants. The reasoning you offer might still apply, but I doubt it concerned the climb rate of 1944 F4U variants.
I'm not sure about your CFS skills, but As far as easy listening tech goes while painting the house you are a true ace! I took on full drop tanks and am in for the entire mission!
I've come to hold Greg as one of my favorite sources for the sort of in-depth technical discussion of aviation, particularly in the WW2 era, that keeps me enthralled while boring my friends and relatives to tears. In other words, just my sort of chap. I could imagine having a very informative and fascinating discussion of any number of winged things over a pint.
I find it hilarious that anyone would dislike you Greg. Your obviously the more popular TH-camrs on the subjects you've continued to ace. Some people are just odd I guess. Anyway another very interesting video. Thanks
Excellent Greg, you may want to check the video discussing wether the P-47 or P-51 was the better fighter, that’s on the “Australian Military Aviation History” channel here on YT. Quite a debate developed there and it involves much of the topics you covered here.😉
There's no such thing as "the best fighter" of WW2 or even one that can be proven better than any others, there's only people's favorites. It's impossible to come up with some kind of a formula to prove a case, total kills and kill to loss ratios don't prove anything because of all the different circumstances and conditions that they fought under, at the end of the day people just have a favorite one and they'll argue for it but it's impossible to quantify any kind of results. It's like this whole thing about the P47's critical Mach number, at the end of the day so what, even if it is as low as the Eric Brown deciples claim based on his say so apparently it's not that important considering the P47's combat record, the fact that a bunch of guy's new to aerial warfare showed up in it and shot down Luftwaffe pilots from when the Luftwaffe was at it's height speaks volumes, they were fighting against pilots who'd survived the Spanish Civil War, the Battle of Britain and fighting in the east and they still shot them down at 7 to 1, even more every time one of those Luftwaffe pilots with a ridiculously high score got sent to the west from the east they were promptly blasted out of the sky by P47's, those are really the only things that matter.
@@dukecraig2402it also shouldn't be underestimated the disadvantages the allied escorts were placed at, flying much further from any bases meant, less options to return home with damage, less ground control support and more fuel restrictions.
@@charlesfowler4308 Oh yea, chances are if they had to bail out they weren't doing it over friendly territory, I've read and heard in more than one interview with pilots who said that they were worried about making it all the way across the Channel and faced with the prospects of dying from hypothermia within minutes of being in the water they determined within seconds it was better to become a POW and bailed out over German held territory, about the only real concern there is you don't want to bail out over a place you just got done dropping bombs on, more than once Wermacht troops had to show up and save downed members of bomber crews from angry villagers with clubs and pitchforks, those bomber crews knew it was best to ride it out as far away from where you just dropped your bombs as possible, I read once of a P51 pilot who was killed by townspeople who mistakingley thought that rounds impacting on the ground from dogfighting above them was the planes strafing them.
Second time watching this, I just realized how few people know our care about Greg's channel who fly this flight sim... kinda weird. I love this channel and if Greg wanted a 1v1, I think most people would be up for it. But probably most people watching this don't have this game, but just love hearing Greg narrate anything aviation.
Greg, I watch your videos for the thoroughness of your evaluations and caveats facing uncertainties. You seek truth and call out when fog is present. I also am a WWII buff, of sorts. So your content and especially your methods attract me. These attract me because I was fortunate during my early 20s to have a job evaluating information on chemicals’ toxic effects. This was fortunate because I reviewed the vast majority (all?) of sources available and discovered there can be a lot of “fog” in the scientific literature. This effort included peer-reviewed scientific literature…with mistakes, contradictions, and uncertainty. The value of the skepticism I developed served me well in my scientific and engineering career.
On the MiG-19 subject, not arguing who had better firepower at that point in time, but keep in mind that those were the days when guns were deleted from aircraft more often than added. MiG-19 started life as a 3-gun fighter, and it swapped pretty quickly to NR-30 mm cannons, but we don't have that variant simulated in DCS. We have MiG-19P, an all-weather interceptor version which was developed simultaneously with the tactical fighter, and which was more of an equivalent to F-102 rather than F-100. Eventually that path of development would led to missile-only MiG-19PM with all guns removed. Good point on the discrepancy in Russian aircraft performance and other more elusive factors that are hard to convey in the world of flight simulators. A topic definitely worth a full video, although it's always a controversial subject whenever it's mentioned. I remember those arguments on the old Il-2 forums 20 years ago. Some things never change...
I fully agree with the fact of authors being stuck with what they have written and their reluctance to change their position after they are proven wrong. Even though such occurrences are more prominent in books, unfortunately, the same happens with some historians, here on TH-cam. There is no need to mention names, but some, after they have spent weeks, or even months developing a narrative, find themselves thereafter very reluctant to correct their work, instead choosing to double down, thus incurring massive holes in their reputation. This is completely unnecessary, frustrating for those who have explored the topic, and misleading for those who are just beginning to learn about it. In my book, there is enormous grace in admitting one's mistake, correcting it, leaning from it and avoiding it in the future.
Back in the day in Microsoft Combat Flight Simulator the FW 90 was almost impossible to shoot down. It was ridiculously immune to 50bmg rounds. I spent many hours on MS flight sims and found them to provide a surprisingly realistic flying experience; however, watching a real pilot flying here is an eye opener. You fly the simulated FW 90 as if it’s a real plane.
In Jane's WWII fighters as a kid, the AI FW was unbeatable on ace level. It would handily out-run a P-51, fly out to 1.2mi ahead, loop into a head-on pass with four cannons, and two Mgs blazing. They rarely missed.
Re: Mine shells I think I recall it was about muzzle velocity. The allied Hispano guns had a high MV, the much lighter German ones not. While low weight is great, low MV wasn't, so light weight shell to the rescue. Conveniently filled with a lot of explosives for effect.
You're probably more correct than most will give you credit. From the firearm side, gun weight is highly dependent on caliber, but also chamber pressure. Chamber pressure translates into velocity of a given mass. A large caliber is larger mass, all things being equal. If you have a lightweight, low pressure gun for arial work, lightning the projectile will translate into improved muzzle velocity. But possibly lower downrange velocity, ideally at a range beyond effective engagement distance. Even with lower velocity at the target, having a substantial amount of explosives in the projectile is going to help a lot when dealing with wood, and sheet skinned aluminum aircraft. I suspect also very effective against light stringers and aux spars. But, it appears by P-47 durability, and German desire for 30mm against bombers, I would say 20mm was ineffective against heavy built up aluminum spars and probably steel components and trusses as well.
How are you snapshotting to enemies at around 14:00? I've never seen that in DCS before. Same with 18:38, you snapshot and highlight under your wing? Is that a binding?
While floating around on the interweb I ran into a royal aeronautical society paper by JAD Ackroyd about the aerodynamics of the spitfire.It’s quite interesting although I don’t have the knowledge to completely understand it. There is a graph with some Mach numbers of various fighters including the p47 which seems to put it at around 0.73 if I understand it correctly.
I don't understand why people attack you!! You seem like an awesome guy!! I have a tremendous amount of respect for you and your videos!! You know so much about airplanes and cars! I am a machinist and understand everything you say, and it all makes sense to me! Don't let crazy people on TH-cam bother you. When you put yourself out there, there are always some nut jobs who come out of the woodwork and will attack you! I would say the vast majority love your videos!! You go into so much detail, and I always learn something i didn't know, and I know a lot!
Hey can you provide a link for the Eric Brown interview you're referring to? In the one I'm watching he never actually mentions "tactical" Mach limit, though he does pretty much describe it the same way: "the Me-109 could maneuver up to Mach 0.78". The only ones I've seen are the Dronescapes videos, and they're all of the same two interview sessions just with different parts included... Nevermind that, I must have missed it last time but you did say it was from his book which I haven't got.
Hi Greg. On the subject of the Mig-15 cannon, years ago I read that the Mig armament was optimised for shooting bombers while the F-86 was optimised for fighters. What’s your opinion on that? Personally I’m not convinced because Soviet fighter designs back to the LaGG-3, Yak-1 and MiG-3 all have that “two small guns and a big one” armament, and suspect they just scaled up over time. Also more of a maintenance or training problem I guess, but when Royce Williams had his dogfight over Korea he reported such trajectory separation between the Mig guns that the 23s were passing overhead and the 37s below.
Well, it was quite a bit of time between LaGG-3, Yak-1 and MiG-3 and Mig-15. Include whole ww2. And Russians study heavily German experience in ww2. American heavy bombers surely had been a biggest concern for soviet air force. Especially till surface-to-air missiles had been quite developed.
I don't think American bombers were a special concern, it merely justified what had already been done. Even American planes would commonly have rifle caliber machine guns mixed with .50s during the 1930s. The smaller caliber guns give more time on target for a given weight, or just less weight and therefore more performance. Now think in terms of socialist dictatorships that have to prove they are better than capitalist systems. Fail to meet expectations and face a purge. How do you convince your politicos who are not engineers or pilots that what you designed and built is better? Throwing in a bigger gun is an easy way to convince them its better. You can see this in their tank production as well. Another way is to show that what you built is as fast or faster, or climbs better. Never mind the sacrifices made to get there; no brakes no heaters no trim no ventilation no boosted controls - just read off the specs. Hell, Greg even mentions the speed of the Mig-25. Mach 3+ aircraft if you destroy the engines! I wonder how fast an F-15 or 14 could go if you removed their stops and let them self destruct too. So ya, across the board there appears to be a press for specs for the sake of the press, the propaganda value. @@vladimirpecherskiy1910
Your argument about short service life and disappointing performance of Soviet planes is spot on. When you look into Soviet tanks (especially WWII ones, but also a later ones), quality issues, material shortages and design issues were rampant and alarmingly common. When you add in spotty training and lower level of educations and knowledge of Soviet operators, you have a situation when even Soviet leadership thinks people are sabotaging their work and machines on purpose because they are constantly breaking down. So when planes are having the same issues as tanks, it's the system that failed here.
Not an engineer or a pilot, but my guess is that the comment about the build quality of the P-51 translates pretty well to a LOT of fairly elaborate mechanical devices, and - if museum displays are any indication - to a lot of other aircraft, military and civilian alike.
In regard to penetration of cannon shells... I think Greg is thinking too much in terms of penetration. The reality is that aluminum skinned planes, and even heavier aluminum structures, just dont require a lot of penetrating ability. You can only make the shell so big and so heavy for a given caliber, might as well maximize its damage beyond just punching a hole in the target. Suppose you fire a shell at an enemy and the shell enters the engine compartment. Which would you prefer, slightly better penetration, or a lot more explosives? I think it's a philosophy thing, not a target materials thing.
You must have missed the part where he said that it didn't make any difference with bombers because they had very little armor on them and penetrating their skin wasn't a problem. And to answer your question if you put one into the engine compartment you definitely want one with penetration and lots of shell fragments being splattered all over the place, that's why all the modern ammo for the destruction of aircraft is made that way like the ammo we had on the Vulcan gun I was an air defense gunner on, modern jets are basically flying engine compartments compared to WW2 aircraft, they don't have all the big open area's like WW2 aircraft had inside of them except for bombers and missile's are the principle weapons used for them in thos day and age, those MINE type shell's had virtually no shrapnel qualities to them. The reason the Germans used those in WW2 wasn't because they were worried about their effect on engine's, the way they were designed to work was to overpressurize the inside of a fuselage or wing and rupture it like a balloon which would break the stringers and any other load bearing members causing it to break right there, and their 30mm was far more effective at doing that than their 20mm, the RAF and the USAAF conducted tests where they took captured 20 and 30mm cannons and fired them into the fuselages of Lancaster's and B17's, the results showed that especially with the 30mm the structural integrity from the overpressurizing balloon effect broke almost every one of the stringers and other load bearing members, but there was hardly any shrapnel type of damage, when firing into an engine compartment shrapnel is far more important because you're looking to poke holes in fuel and oil lines, oil coolers, coolant lines and anything else that'll bleed out or cause engine problems like the intake manifold, a high explosive only shell would blow panels off more than poke holes in the kind of things you want holes poked in, the German MINE shell's didn't even really enter the aircraft, they exploded when only about half way through the skin with the overpressurizing of that area happening from the explosive force blowing through the skin to the inside. The channel WWII US Bombers has a video on the 20 and 30mm gun tests during the war complete with the USAAF reports on them along with pictures of the results of the test fuselages being shot, check it out, it's very insightful to the kind of damage they were looking to do with those MINE shell's.
Hi Greg, I appreciate your breadth of topics, research of original sources, and detailed analyses of the issues. What PC peripherals do you use for flying Sims?
This seems like the right community to ask this question, so hopefully someone sees this. Is cowl flap drag an issue of the flaps extending outward and interrupting the air stream, or is it an issue with the airflow through the radiator? If it's the first, why were cowl flaps designed to stick out when they could just as easily fold inward or be sliding doors? I believe I saw on the Poliparkov I-16, that the radiator is opened by a disk with matching cutouts that rotates to open or cover the inlets and that seems more aerodynamic/efficient? In the case of a cowl like the F4F, it seems like those fins that hinge on the front and stick out like airbrakes, could instead hinge on the back and press inward to open the air channel.
As regards German cannons, I think people conflate the 20mm MG151 mine shells with the 30mm MK101/3/8 cannons. The former show a more clear shift from general use 20mm HE shells over to the specialized variants, while the latter are almost exclusively seen used for the anti-bomber role due to their size and time of introduction (ignoring the antitank uses here). When taking into account that the MG FF had to be changed into the MG FF/M to use the new mine shells, it makes more sense that the MG 151 was intended from the ground up to be able to use the mine shells, but were able to use other types as well.
I think a lot has to do with the operating mechanism of the gun. The MG FF and the Mk 108 were API blowback guns, where the strength of the spring has to be tightly tuned to the shell being fired. The Mg 151 was a short recoil operated gun, which is a bit more flexible wrt different ammunition weights.
I hadn't considered the operating mechanism, which goes some length to explaining the differences. Using War Thunder for quick reference (forgive me), I certainly see more shell types and weights for the 151 than the Mk 108 or even Mk 103. Looks like the latter only has mine shells for explosive types while the Mg 151 has at least 3 different AP-type shells. The MG FF only lists APHE and AP-I. @@jbepsilon
I must apologize in advance, Greg, but I had to come back to this video. I love this channel so much that I had to share my honest, researched, hopefully unbiased opinion. After going through my library of Eric Brown videos, and after analyzing the interviews in question, I realized that has been a big misunderstanding. Not by you, I presume, but by viewers who comment on your videos. First, we must untie the notion that Jimmy Doolittle went "hat in hand" to Farnborough. He didn't. He didn't have to. As Eric Brown explains in a couple of interviews, when the American bombers started to bomb at high altitude, the American escorting fighters, while diving to intercept German fighters were getting into compressibility problems, resulting in the loss of planes as well as pilots. Doolittle was aware of the high altitude research at Farnborough, and since the planes were already there, in the very environment in which they went into combat, it made sense for him to ask Farnborough to replicate the reports from B-17 crews. Not with hat in hand, not in any subordinate fashion, he simply asked Farnborough to look into it, which the British gladly did. In regards to tactical Mach number, that was something that the research group at Farnborough invented, yes, but that's how research goes. A concept has to be invented at one point or another. In this case, it referred to the maximum Mach number at which an aircraft could maneuver without danger of compressibility. We should avoid the temptation to brush it off as "something which they came up with" simply because early U.S. fighters scored poorly according to it. It didn't take long for the U.S. to come up with a fighter which did greatly at high altitudes. For reference, in the TH-cam video "WarBirds of World War II : Fighter Tactics 101", at minute 12:54, a WWII American pilot recalls the difficulties of maneuvering with 109's at high altitude.
In the video you referenced they are talking about the P-38 and compressability. Not exactly news, it's well established that the 109 had a higher Mach limit than the P-38. The P-47 is another matter. I didn't cover the P-38 in this video at all.
Hello, in one of your videos I saw you list a bunch of other aviation youtubers you thought were worth watching but I cannot remember what video it was in. I was wondering if you wouldn't mind giving me some as it's hard to know what channels are good or not
The other reason Soviet (and not only) pilots flew with canopies open (at least in Yaks) was that (backed up by many Polish pilots memoirs from WW2) the perspex glass used in canopies became yellow and harder to see through quite quickly.
they also had a problem with getting the canopy back or even off to bail out. Russian fighters had no jettison system in their early inline fighters. It took direct combat to get the factories to fit the means to get the canopy open in a crisis.
“Soviet fighters had a tendency to leak carbon monoxide into the cockpit. That’s a big problem.” I love how Greg talks simply when addressing the Soviet fanboys.
Winkle Brown climbed into the Thunderbolt's cockpit and promptly got lost, he clambered into the seat muttering "this is a large aircraft" in his inimitably polite way. I recall Abbott and Costello and the sisters who sang Bugle Boy...see what I mean? I can't get the Pointer Sisters Neutron Dance out of my head.
Wild that people would get super hostile over this stuff but then again we have seen it before on the internet. Long video but definitely a good one to listen to and retouch alot of the previous videos. When talking about the mine cannon rounds we are talking about minegeschloß right or am I thinking of a different round.
During my two tours in FRG, my landlord in the first tour was an old NAZI Ace and he hung out with other German aces. They all claimed that the standard mix of ammo types was one AP-HE-I, one mine shell and one conventional HE-I shell with tracer! So every third round was a Mine shell, or AP-HE-I, or Conventional HE-I shell. Each type of shell had a specific effect that worked best Vs a particular type of plane, or part of a plane. The high concentration of tracer rounds made A2A gunnery much easier. It was nearly impossible to kill or wound the pilot behind the seat back armor without the AP-I round and the pilot was considered the most vulnerable and easiest vital target to force down the plane.
Yes, I wasn't complete there, certain German cannons could fire one shell or the other. Some like the MGFF could not, it had to be set up for one or the other.
I ❤Greg’s Channel! - Greg, join us for the 80th Memorial Ceremony on D-Day 2024 and we will visit all the beaches together. I’m either planning an Air Assault with Tyro at the controls or boat arrival if the weather is too bad. Our RV point is Duxford a few days before and then rally at the Omaha Beach Memorial on June 6th.
In complete agreement with your position on P-47 dive/mach performance. In my 50+ years of aviation research, I've never come across anything from pilots or tech reports to line up with what Eric Brown's account SEEMS to suggest. I can imagine, if Doolittle of the AAF was requesting a test or documents from the RAF, and wanted a timely response, he could well ask that they give this matter some priority. Characterizing that as a hat-in-hand urgent request could well be misconstruing the situation. He might just not have wanted a typical, "we'll put it through channels", 2 month wait for a response. As you know, Doolittle pioneered in-flight refueling, the Curtiss F11C Goshawk biplane had a "drop" tank, as well as the 1941 P-40C; I think the U.S. HAD drop tank technology well in hand by 1943. Let's see, wasn't that the year we shot down Yamamoto on a long-range mission? I agree, there were other factors at work preventing availability of drop tanks to P-47s! I disagree with your theory as to the reason Minengeschoss was developed, that is to say, beyond the obvious reason of creating more damage. MG/FM was a 1939/1940 modification to that particular gun for that ammo, but subsequent German autocannons were designed to use all rounds interchangeably. There are RAF reports extensively analyzing explosive cannon shell, and specifically Minengeschoss, performance, because RAF was experiencing damage results that were out of proportion to single shot expectations, both as to blast and shrapnel. None of my research shows Germans experiencing any particular problems downing Soviet a/c, which were single and twin engined, and typically rather lightly protected. The exception was the armored steel portion of the IL-2, but the German 2cm loadout was quickly modified to include API. The MK 108 was specifically developed for 4-engine bombers, and specifically with Minengeschoss in mind; with 3cm hits on a/c, one doesn't need, or even want, AP or ball rounds; the blast effect is so devastating. This was a priority operational use on Western Front, RAF and daylight bomber streams, in both day and night fighters. Heinz Knocke's Bf-109 Wing ("I Flew for the Fuehrer") were early adopters. In DCS, can you play time periods, other than just late war, wherein all players are limited to using only a/c from that period? BTW, Spitfire, while beautiful, uses both lapped joints and non-flush rivets for some areas of its airframe; the P-51was a much cleaner airframe. I also think the 109 gets a bit of an undeserved bad wrap for "bulges", underwing cannon and rockets excepted. Have you noticed the cannon bulges, wheel, intake, radiator and rocker cover bulges on late Mark Spitfires? Narrow-tracked Spitfires also had an inordinate share of landing accidents. Brown's account of Spitfire surpassing .9 mach in dive really puzzles me, as l have Jeffrey Quill's book, "Spitfire Test Pilot", and read the diving test reports...
I've been wondering why Japanese even bothered to develop an APHE round for their 30mm Type 5 cannon. Perhaps against shipping? Similarly army's 30mm Ho-155 had some kind of AP round.
@Teh0X What you suggest makes sense. From 1937 on, and certainly from 1941, Japan would be in constant assaults against shipping and ground installations, requiring ammunition with better penetration than typically short-timed-fused HE. For the air groups tasked solely with bomber interception, such as over mainland Japan, it would be revealing to know what their types of ammo loadout were for their largest caliber autocannons. Practically, meaning logistically, no one desires to have to choose from, which means keep stores of, dozens of different types of ammo. That kind of specialization, besides creating servicing nightmares, is totally unnecessary. The use of explosive AP ammunition against a/c is less about the need for a hardened steel penetrator, and much more about its delayed explosive fusing, enabling it to penetrate into the aircraft interior, rather than bursting on the exterior skining/structure. Against large a/c such as the B-29, this would be important.
Re: the Spitfire rivets, in the Geoffrey Quill book on the history of the Spitfire he noted that the original prototype was fully flush riveted. In order to simplify production and, therefore, time taken to manufacture, they did some wind tunnel experiments with gluing split peas to the fuselage to see what difference it made with parasitic drag. The difference was nil to negligible, so normal raised rivets were subsequently used on the fuselage aft of the cockpit.
do you have a set of peddles and a control stick? A video head set thing? or are you flying with your mouse and arrow keys? i would love this stuff if i had a cockpit and a video head set. that would be sweet.
Greg can you do a top 5 dogfighters of WW2 video or a 5 part series starting with no.5 and do a countdown? That would be really interesting and controversial. Best dogfighter doesn't mean best fighter I think most people understand this, but if you found yourself in a 1 on 1 duel in WW2 which plane would you want to be in?
PS. The German 20 MM HE-I shells came in two Versions, the mine shell which massed 94-96 grams each and the conventional Drilled Bar Stock HE-I shell of about 108-110 Grams Mass. They had 17-18 grams of PETN in the mine shells and 4.5-6 Grams of various types of HE in the conventional shell. The AP-I shell had less explosive but Massed about 108-110 Grams per projectile with a solid nose and a base fuse. MV Varied from 750 M/S for the Mine shell and 705 M/S for the other two types. War time Hisso ammo used a drilled bar-stock shell of about 130 Grams with a flat nosed fuse, or a one caliber ogive for the AP-i shell. With about 4.5-5.6 grams of HE loaded. MV was about 880 M/S Out of the early guns and 840 M/S out of the post war Mk-V Hissos.
An addition to speaking about mineshells in the Battle of Britain. It is possible that they were very effective against the most common fighter at that point for the RAF, the Hurricane, as it had a fabric covered rear half.
"...although it's not stated in plane text..." I am not sure why this subtle accidental pun was so funny to me, maybe because of it being about a flight manual or most likely because my brain is broken.
I thought you explained the Eric Brown P47 mach limit subject quite clearly in the original video, so I was surprised to see you defending that position. He said, she said, facts are to be ignored. There are times when I can't stand the interweb... I also think that that the P47 Range & Deceit video is historically important, something that should be written as an article for peer review. A PhD will keep you busy when you retire Greg. 👨🎓
P-47 problem with dive was not acceleration but compressibility making it unable to pull out of the dive due to heavy nose down trim at high mach. Split-S from 35k ft renders P-47 unable to pull out until 15k ft or so. Compressibility flaps made P-47 able to pull out of compressibility dive. No wonder why Bombers crew reports telling that when P-47 went down straight it just disappeared, because it takes time to pull out of that dive. Difficulty to avoid exceed dive speed was in tremendous acceleration in straight down dive. Experienced pilot would know how to avoid entering compressibility and utilizing this acceleration. Early P-51 had same problem when passing around 0.7 mach proposing effect would appeared with total lose of elevator control. Later models got upgrade in change in angle of incidence of horizontal stabilizer and metal upgrade of elevator. Since then P-51 could go 0.8 mach with out lose of control. P-47 resolve this problem with compressibility flaps which provides P-47 with steady pull out force.
Nope, all the tests that established the P-47 Mach limits were on planes built before the recovery flaps showed up. Also no N model ever had the recovery flaps. The altitude loss is a split S is specifically due to the fact that the plane accelerates so well in a dive, that's specifically talked about in the manual, it wasn't the heavy "nose down trim" as you said. Also the greatest amount listed in the manual for altitude loss in a Split S is 15,000 feet, and that from a Split S entered a high speed with the power ON, which was not recommended, specifically because of the rapid acceleration. It has nothing to do with Mach limits. You should probably watch my P-47 dive video. All this stuff is covered.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Yeah they added compressibility flaps just for fun, your logic is pristine. Manuals clearly states that elevator authority comes back at alt between 18k and 15k ft when P-47 enters compressibility at higher alt. And this one i just read by heaving P-47manual before my eyes. "Hold steady back pressure on stick, keep ball centered, keep aileron centered, increase power never decrease power at around 15k you should be able to pull out if not use trim to aid but with caution." Manual also mentions that if significant side slip is present it makes impossible to recover from divie so they advice to use rudder trim to put ball centered perfectly. usually placing rudder trim at (N) does the trick." This are quotes from P-47 prior N manual not P-47N this is different story. At begging they though that P-47 compressibility problem will be as strong as in P-38 case when P-38 at alt 30k ft power on and put in to 15 degree dive was in compressibility within 15 seconds and nose drops straight down, but still in very deep dives P-47 could enter this compressibility issue.
I didn't say there was no reason to add them, rather that the mach limits in the manuals are not predicated on them being there. The quote from the manual you are posting is for a situation when the plane is in compressability, which by definition means the plane is at or above the Mach limit. The fact that the P-47 can even recover after it's in compressablity is quite impressive, in many planes it would be too late at that point. I really think you should watch my video on Mach limits to gain an understanding of this stuff.
I watch all your videos, and i understand mach limits, im only saying that P47 dive acceleration made it very easy to get in compressibility from high alt dive and going straight down from 35k ft in p47 compressibility was guaranteed if pilot hold dive for about 7k ft if p47 had high speed before dive compressibility came quicker. And this match for me with reports talking about p47 disappearing after dives from the bombers crews.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles When Charles Lindbergh was doing high-altitude tests on P-47 he had hypoxia from oxygen mask malfunction at 40,000 feet and had to go into a full power dive to get down to where there was breathable air. It would be interesting to know what speed he reached doing that!
I think you’re right on Brown. He specifically says the p47 “could fight up to a Mach number of .71”. Which lends water to your argument of an acceptable controllability at a given Mach number.
Anyone who has followed this incredible channel for for longer than 5 minutes knows Gregg is the epitomy of honesty and intelligence ... keep it up mate and to hell with the haters.😊
Thanks.
100%
As for his aeroplane content ,I've been enjoying it for a lot longer than 5 minutes, more like 20 minutes, I'm a new subscriber and I have been watching his muscle car videos ,and as a lifelong fan of fighter planes this channel suits me perfectly (if it also included vintage dirt bikes that would be awsome ) .
It's going to be good to watch all his prior plane videos. My father served in the RNZAF in WW2 in the Pacific ,as a side gunner in Catalina's, and sometimes in Mitchell bombers .As a kid I enjoyed his recollections of seeing P38's , Kittyhawks, Corsairs, Airacobra's etc .Luckily for him ,he was not involved in any combat ,the enemy never reached where he was stationed, that would have changed though if Midway didn't turn out like it did. Also I'd like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the recent passing of Sir Tim Wallis , the New Zealand Warbirds collector and founder of " Warbirds over Wanaka ", RIP Tim.
Greg is the muthufuckin man. I’d trust this guy with my life. He’s that ethical, honest, and thorough. His exposure of the bomber mafia and the great lie they perpetuated was a masterful piece of detective work. He would have made a terrific judge, lawyer, or police detective.
Yeah this channel is so well done and researched.. one of my favorites… but the real reason I came here was to laugh at the cringy , almost creepy comments you guys leave. You didn’t disappoint. Good grief you guys are cringe , like that one by Caleb 😂
Jimmy Doolittle was also an accomplished engineer. He even held a Doctorate in Aerospace Engineering. Doolittle was the first to do an IFR takeoff and landing, the first to do an outside loop, famous air racer, and helped standardize high octane fuel in the US, among many other accomplishments. He did not need Eric Browns help nor the British help in general. If he needed help, he had access to NACA and the aircraft manufacturers.
I agree.
I have no problem whatsoever calling Eric Brown a liar, absolutely none, especially when the subject he'd be talking about had ANYTHING to do with America, in that regard that man lied so much he forgot what the truth was, I quit watching interviews with him after watching one where he claimed to have first hand knowledge that in the 50's the US secretly assembled and flew that piece of junk Horten flying wing, he made up that lie just so he could say "And it's a shame that it wasn't flown by a 'proper' test pilot because the opportunity to learn so much from it was lost".
What a bunch of crap, it's very well known that nobody in the US ever flew that hot mess, no test pilot in the world would even attempt to fly that death trap, the workmanship in it isn't anywhere near aircraft grade from them changing things as it was being built making them cut things apart and having to be rewelded, people who know what they're looking at have said there's not a test pilot worth their salt would approve that thing to fly after looking at it.
Other lies Brown has told as a way of poking America in the eye was his nonsense claim that he saw Adolf Hitler shake Jessie Owens' hand at the 36 Olympics, the entire world knows that Adolf Hitler got up and walked out of the 36 Olympics because Owens embarrassed his master race nonsense, and anyone that believes Adolf Hitler would have shook a black man's hand is delusional, the reason Brown made that lie up about supposedly seeing Hitler shake his hand in secret is because he knows it's an embarrassing thing for America that FDR didn't invite Owens to the White House like all other gold metal athletes, so he figured he'd say Hitler shook his hand just to make 1936 America look even worse.
I don't think I ever watched a single interview of his where he didn't tell some kind of a lie about America in it, so yea, I have no problem calling him a liar whatsoever.
He's also the only reason high-octane aviation fuel was available in large amounts when it was needed. He pressed Shell into developing the process for making 100 octane fuel when the "experts" said there was no need for the much more expensive process.
Other videos, I have heard nothing but praise for severely wings strength, also any type of report would have needed to be forwarded to NACA Langley to evaluate and update Wright field to place in those manuals.
@@TheAneewAony
He preferred it because of it's low fuel consumption, he had to gas up thousands of bombers and fighter's, and wherein fuel never really was a supply issue Jimmy Doolittle wasn't psychic, he couldn't see into the future and tell there wasn't going to be some kind of surprise German U-boat campaign that would seriously cut down on the supply of high octane fuel from America, P38's had the range to escort bombers anywhere they went but they had two of the same engine that the P51 had, you don't have to have a PHD in in mathematics to know what that means, the P47, well using it for escort was about the same as taking a drag car on a cross country vacation as far as fuel consumption goes.
When Doolittle took command of the 8th Air Force in January of 44 victory in Europe in just over a year certainly wasn't a given, one of his considerations was stretching out fuel as much as he could, he was a smart guy and only a dummy wouldn't think about that, he did the math, he knew how many more P51's he could put in the sky with a given amount of fuel than he could with other fighter's he had at his disposal.
On the cockpit ergonomics, flying the F6F in MSFS was a real revelation. The plane just wants to fly and at cruise speeds is really easy to fly hands off. It struck me, given the long flight times and strict navigation requirements, a plane that is easy to cruise would have a real practical advantage over aircraft that had higher performance, but would exhaust the pilots during ingress and egress.
And that is likely a big contributor to why it's reputation seems higher than its raw performance numbers would imply.
You're such a natural speaker, able to switch from aviation nerd to tour guide instantly.(-:
Thanks.
The Combat record of the P-47 and P-38 demonstrate that they were far from useless.
Hi Greg,
My flight instructor was a P38 pilot/ace in the Mediterranean. Before he was sent out there, while he was based in England they had him fly an early P-47 to have him give his ideas on how they would use the jug in the air. On this flight after he had climbed to high altitude during his testing, he split essed from up high to RTB.. In the dive he did not recover in time to avoid compressibility, he almost didn't recover.
And in the recovery due to the speed and G load he placed on this jug. He rejected the airframe. The wings had an extra 4 degrees of dihedral, rivets were popped, fairings and antenna had been ripped from the plane. Andy Rooney wrote of this in stars and stripes.
Look up Col.Herb Ross.
That's interesting especially since it was the p38 that was known for compressibility problems..
@@kenneth9874 as i said, he rejected the jug BEFORE he was sent to fly 38's in the Med.
@@topmenace funny how the arguably best American fighter group retained the p47 until the of the war.....and the 8th wasn't the only American air force in Europe. The p51 didn't even show up in numbers until post d day and after the cream of the luftwaffe had been taken out. The need then was tor front line support and interdiction at which the P47's were vastly superior .
Sounds like pilot error....
Interesting. As far as Jimmy Doolittle desperately needing British help on Aerodynamics calculations and testing, the man had a PhD in Aeronautical Engineering from MIT. He was a world renowned and innovative test pilot. Its bit of a stretch to see him going hat in hand pleading for help from the British on matters he was arguably the worlds foremost expert on.
Exactly, that's why I think the version of the story from Eric Brown is a bit different from reality.
Eric Brown was a shameless self promoter.
The claims that the Army Air Corps/Force required the assistance of the British to evaluate aircraft is absolute nonsense. Note that you only hear that from some twit claiming that the Spitfire is the only competent piston/prop fighter of the war.
Doolittle wrote the MIT text book on aero
When an order comes down from a very high level, every layer of command has an opportunity to help their boss looks good and tend to make the most of it, so you get a strange form of the "telephone" game. I think Greg has the right of it here. Doolittle says he'd love to see the numbers => Hey, the famous American guy is interested in our numbers go get them => Gen Doolittle says he needs our help! => ... => It is urgent that we do our utmost to save the Americans by providing them with this data!
This is a very normal thing in a chain of command (especially a military one) and it's not even a bad thing, as it motivates people to deliver. But while in the USAF, many times been told I was "red-balling" some urgent thing for some important officer only to find that it was a routine request, just one that originated from a high place.
@@chs76945Agreed.
Re: "mine shells," I'm still not convinced that the German mine shells were specifically an anti-Soviet technology, for three reasons. First and foremost is the question of timing. It's not just that the Luftwaffe introduced these shells in 1940, it's that they had to be designed and put into production at some point before they were introduced into service - and until about mid-1940, armor in aircraft was virtually unheard of. So at the time these explosives-heavy shells (and the guns to fire them) were being developed, the Luftwaffe expectation would have been that they'd be as effective against the thin aluminum of Western Allied tactical aircraft in 1940 as they would be against the thin aluminum of four-engine heavy bombers in 1943. Second, it should be kept in mind that the Luftwaffe (along with the rest of the Wehrmacht, and everyone else in Germany, and most other people around the world) only expected Operation Barbarossa to take six weeks, or eight at most, before the USSR was forced to capitulate just as France had been. Changing over the primary armament of the entire fighter force to a new gun with new, incompatible ammunition, just to secure a marginal advantage in a campaign that was expected to last well under three months sounds like too much of a logistical nightmare even for Nazi Germany. Third and finally, the one air force that _was_ developing a tactical aircraft that was designed from the ground up to carry significant armor was the USSR with the Il-2, as you've previously discussed. It's possible that the Luftwaffe didn't know anything about this aircraft, which would still have been in the prototype stage (on the one hand, the Heer has plenty of reports of German tankers being unpleasantly surprised by T-34s and KV-1s; on the other hand, Germany and the USSR were more-or-less allied at the time and AFAIK there was a significant amount of spying going on between them), but in any case it would be deeply ironic if the Germans developed a specialty armament for their fighters just to counter wooden aircraft, only to meet Il-2s in the skies.
Re: Eric Brown, I mostly disregard anything he said that can't be corroborated elsewhere - just as I do anything else in any other memoir that can't be corroborated. At best, it's important to remember that his opinions are just that: _his opinions._ And in the case of his post-war books, and especially his interviews, the simple fact of time's passage means his recollections (as with anyone's) cannot be trusted. (This isn't to say that memoirs have no value as history - they can be very good, even irreplaceable, for capturing the "feel" of events, the mood among participants. But as sources of objective historical fact, they are at best limited to what the diarist can piece together from a combination of notes made at the time they're writing about, and unreliable memory filling in the gaps in those notes.) And that's the best case, working on the assumption that Brown was doing his best to be a perfect paragon of unbiased objectivity, rather than being a major pro-British chauvinist - the latter of which appears to be a more accurate characterization.
I believe the Germans did not expect to take on the Soviets until the war was concluded on the western front.
That is an interesting thought on the mine shells. On the one hand the Nazi’s were planning on going east all along so designing shells to take out soviet aircraft long before the actual assault makes sense. On the gripping hand they did assume it would be a very short war so why bother as you mentioned. The only reason I can think of would be that it would be to aide in the first massive strike and that they would end the war faster than using the conventional shells. However your point regarding the Allies aircraft grade aluminum sheeting is well taken so my ultimate guess would be that there were multiple reasons for their development and implementation.
Yeah, exactly. And actually before protected tanks came biggest treat for planes under fire was well - fire. Planes was really easily catching fire - that is why self-sealing tanks and inert gas systems was really big deal. And hing explosive shells perfect to do that damage.
Big H always intended to go east, looong before the war actually kicked of. His book (avoiding the names for youtube reasons) said as much in the 20s. As to expecting a fast war with the USSR, Germany didn't expect a fast war until France collapsed as fast as it did. Most of their generals at the time said that what happened in France was a fluke, they got lucky, and it shouldn't have happened, and then they learned the wrong lessons, and charged straight at Moscow despite big H's preference to pursue the Caucus oil fields. Yeah, Germany did some espionage, but they were one of the worst at it of the WWII players, and during their friendly times with USSR, Russia's air force would have been even more heavily wood-based. So absolutely think Greg's reasoning here is sound.
Il-2 was mostly made of wood, it had armored "bathtub" only for engine and pilot. MiG-3 had similar ratio of metal and wooden surfaces. But in late 30's soviet airforce was mostly aluminium. Not fighters of course, but bombers like SB-2 and later Pe-2 and Yer-2 were all aluminium. On the other hand, Germans clashed with Soviet planes in Spain way before WW2.
I think Germans developed minengeschoß with no specific reason, they just thought it was more effective anti-aircraft ammo overall.
I'm one of the people who brought up Eric Brown's comment regarding the use of P-51s for high altitude bomber escort due to mach number. It wasn't a criticism, The anecdote just came to mind while you were talking on the subject and I didn't see any mention of it after a quick look in the comment section. I completely agree with your interpretation. He was clearly mistaken as I think he says that the US changed exclusively to P-51s for that role after his report, but that was not the case. He was a great pilot and ambassador but nobody is perfect and he would have been focussed on other things at that time.
I didn't take it as a criticism, but so many brought it up I had to talk about it.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles In my defence, I think I saw your video early in its lifetime!!! And I'm glad you did talk about it again because I enjoy watching your WW2 aviation videos as well as your DCS escapades.
The purchase price and operating cost, especially in fuel, of the P51 was much lower than the P47. That likely had a big effect on which was chosen. One chart that I saw had the purchase price in 1943 of the P51 was about $58.8K whereas the P47 as about $104K. Prices of both dropped somewhat the next year, but the P47 was still considerably more expensive.
Greg showed that chart in the final part of his P47 series
"The purchase price and operating cost, especially in fuel, of the P51 was much lower than the P47."
Indeed. However, the P-47 is easily worth it. The P-51 did well in part because it never had to face truly serious opposition. In some ways, you might say that it was the next generation of TYPE of fighter up from the Zero. Very good in some ways, but achieving that through tradeoffs that were NOT a good thing when outside its comfort zone.
In particular, the durability of the planes is like night and day, the P-51 was lightweight high performance, while the P-47 was highperformance but absolutely nowhere close to lightweight. Hits that would cause the P-51 to drop like a fly flying through flames, the P-47 would generally shrug off barely noticing them.
Facing strong opposition, the P-47 would be vastly superior, as you would take distinctly less losses than P-51s would.
While against weak opposition, where serious losses are unlikely, the P-51 is dramatically more affordable, allowing you to field more of them which in turn increases the chance of overwhelming the enemy by numbers and reducing losses even more.
Personally, i would take the P-47 every time, but the P-51 has its own values.
@@DIREWOLFx75 " *Hits that would cause the P-51 to drop like a fly flying through flames, the P-47 would generally shrug off barely noticing them.* "
During Corea they compared P51 and F4U Corsairs. You'd think that an air-cooled Corsair would prove to be much more durable, big plane and all. It wasn't.
I don't know about the P47, but I suspect that the real life vulnerability would be, at the very least, much closer than the legend has it.
" *Personally, i would take the P-47 every time* "
There were people who switched from Spitfires to P-47. Granted, it's a rather drastic switch, but it definitely took some adjustment to like their new birds. Switching from a Spit to a Mustang in general went without much of a hassle.
From my point of view: P-47 has a crowd of diehard fans, who are willing to excuse each and every shortcoming of this plane. I think no other WWII bird has similar following. Sure, people do love other planes too, and it's likely that every good warbird has maybe even higher following. Some people love faulty warbirds, but they tend to be well aware of the shortcoming of the design which stroke their fancy.
The P-47 crowd? It's like you guys soar to new heights! Which is fitting, because that's were P-47 truly shone the brightest! ;-)
@@bakters "P-47 has a crowd of diehard fans"
Sorry, but i'm not part of that. I just appreciate it for its good sides.
"During Corea they compared P51 and F4U Corsairs. You'd think that an air-cooled Corsair would prove to be much more durable, big plane and all. It wasn't."
I don't actually know about the Corsair, but i know that the P-47 was compared to the TBF Avenger in regards to taking damage and still keep on flying.
And the Avenger held the informal record for taking most number of hits and still flying for a looong time.
IIRC, the recordholder was an Avenger from the battle of Midway, where one managed to limp back to base with literally hundreds of holes in it from anything from standard 25mm IJN AA to 7mm MG shots from Zero's.
So yeah, THAT is the kind of reputation for durability the P-47 ended up competing with.
While the P-51, about the kindest said about its lack of durability is that it's even more fragile than a Spitfire.
Basically, a single 20mm hit on a P-51 usually either missionkilled it or shot it down.
A P-47 was essentially never lost to something so "minor".
@@DIREWOLFx75 " *A P-47 was essentially never lost to something so "minor".* "
And we know it, because?
Survivor bias is a thing. For example, the Hurricane also gathered a reputation of coming back with substantial damage and was believed to be more durable than at least the Spit. Upon more careful analysis, it turned out that the Spit was more durable.
I mean, let's be real. A jug was a thin-skinned, single engined fighter, not a flying tank. The pilot was not protected from most angles, so technically even a single 30cal bullet could down the plane, and I suspect it might even happen at some point. The engine was not armored, and because if was an aviation engine, it was built as light as they could. Yes, it was a big engine, but it mostly makes it a big target.
Actually, that's all that P-47 had going for him. It was a big plane, so there was a chance that a shot will hit "the plane", yet somehow miss anything of vital importance. That was more likely to happen when shot directly from behind with small caliber weapons. All those turbos were not critical.
Apart from that, it was an air-cooled and lightly built plane, just like A6M2, only bigger.
Thanks, great video as always.
Thank you very much. My wife will be pleased and encourage my video hobby.
Let it go Gregg, Most subscribers love what you are doing and applicate the time and lengths you go to to give the facts to the best of your available knowledge , I would say it is impossible to avoid the type of people who like nothing better than to criticise . keep up the good work and keep doing what you are have been up to now and work on a percentage basis , if 99.9 % are liking you content then you cannot be going far wrong .👌
I agree, let it go. I'm not saying I could but you should :). You always express your opinion and then the facts you used to arrive there and that's enough.
no need to let anything go if it means we get a 90 minute video out of it haha
Truth Fred! But I agree with the others. Greg’s content is unmatched. Keep up the great work man!
I refer all of you over to the classic Monty Python sketch, "The Argument Clinic"
🤣🤣🤣⚡🤯⚡. . .😯
Greg, it appears that your topics, the quality and quantity of your output, and your humility and interest in citing sources to back your conclusions has, and this is a bit baffling, attracted the attention of some personality-disordered narcissists.
Your description of how at least one of them, when refuted by citations and facts, will slyly attempt to change the topic, is textbook.
Such defective persons will never admit wrongdoing and error, take pleasure in bullying behavior, and exploit pro-social gatherings to call attention to themselves, and to cause suffering.
Your response, too, is near textbook: refute them with facts and citations, so that other readers know these narcissists and disordered individuals are wrong, and move on. Such creatures are best denied the one thing they crave: attention of any kind, and admiration.
Just discovered your channel today and OMG it's awesome! I'm a huge WWII fan so your videos on WWII fighters have been very interesting! You are amazing at explaining things clearly and concisely!
Thanks Stan.
I would be very interested in a video all about Jimmy Doolittle, most of the stuff here on TH-cam is all about the famous Tokyo raid and not his career afterwards. He’s one of those figures who pops up a lot in American aviation and it would nice to hear his full story from a biographical perspective.
His autobio ("I Could Never Be So Lucky Again") is a really remarkable book. No good way to tell for sure, but it feels like an extremely honest account (at least with respect to himself-- he would absolutely paint things in a way that made his country and his troops look better).
Greg, I wouldn’t worry about others and if they say negative things. You are fact base and able to demonstrate this with DCS and original documentation. My feeling is you are willing to consider other views, and it is to enjoy cars and airplanes. Great stuff!
Captain Eric Brown was a fantastic source of information. He flew more aircraft variants than anyone alive, by some margin. As such, it would be foolish, in our part, to expect him to be correct in every single statement that he made.
Although he had a very sharp mind, even up until his very last days, he was still a human being, and no human being was or will ever be infallible. Numbers can get mixed up, aircraft variants can be confused, or it can be down to something as simple as misspeaking.
So, for any source, be it Eric Brown or anybody else, it should always be compared with other sources, be put into context, and consider its potential fallibility.
I agree, I have a lot of respect for him. He went through some really tough times in the war, especially after his carrier was sunk and he had to survive at sea. His flying exploits really are the stuff of legend, but he is after all human.
Greg's version of Drach's Drydock! Hooray!
Hey Greg, while the MGFF could not fire minengeschoss, while the MGFF/M could fire it, but not fire the regular rounds, the regular rounds were altered to work in the MGFF/M. And the MG-151/20 could fire both from the start, to my knowledge. Several historical belts include the 'heavier' AP alongside the 'light' minengeschoss.
The MG FF fired a 134g explosive-tracer shell and the same shell without explosive filler as a practice round that could also penetrate armor and poke holes into fuel tanks.
To make it compatible with the MG FF/M they changed the fuze to one that weight merely 10g instead of 27g, resulting in 115-117g shells, that could be fired together with the ~90g Mineshells.
Since the Mineshell delivered destruction by blast, the explosive-tracer was changed to an explosive-incendiary shell.
The same shell was later modified to be just an incendiary shell by removing explosive and detonator to make it only carry incendiary mixture.
@@Kuschel_K
Thank you, chatGPT!
@@ThatZenoGuy Very intelligent reply.
@@Kuschel_K
Yeah! ;D
@@ThatZenoGuy 🙃
Unfortunately Saint Eric Brown, whilst undoubtably a great test pilot, did have a massive ego and was a little full of his own self-importance. He wasn't beyond embellishing a story. The recently released biography, 'Winkle' by Paul Beaver, is a very good insight into the personality of a man he knew very well.
Just about everything that came out of Browns mouth that had to do with America was a jealousy based lie, massive ego wasn't his only problem, he had a jealous streak in him a mile wide, he spent the rest of his life never being able to get over the fact that it was an American pilot who was the first to break the sound barrier and not him, so like a child in a fit of rage he spent the rest of his life telling lies about America supposedly having stolen how to do it from the British, he was a little child.
When I first discovered Eric Brown books of his impressions of various aircraft, I thought they were great comparisons. But at some point, it seemed like about the first thing he mentioned on any American plane was how excessively roomy the cockpit was, and it seemed to color everything else he had to say about those planes. His love of the Spitfire was obvious, and I have no doubt it was a great plane. But there are different models, different roles, different opposition, and no plane is best in everything. It's been a long time since I read any of his books, maybe being American colors my views as much as his being British colors his views. But as you say, Saint Brown has worn out his welcome in my to-read shelves. The few times I have read his reports since, I pay attention only to the most obvious objective remarks and discount everything else as poorly presented opinion.
I don't know if my father had ever heard of Eric Brown till much later, and I honestly don't know when he heard about him but there are a couple of things.
1) I didn't recognise my father in a group of 3 people in RAF uniform against a backdrop of trees. He pointed himself out and I did not understand, he was so thin. He did not resemble himself and he would be about 20 or more.
2) As far as I can gather most of his work was on bombers although he mentioned a spitfire being polished for photo reconisance work.
3) He described the American cockpits as being very roomy.
Perhaps it is all a matter of expectations.
Is he any worse than Yeager?
@@Trashcansam123
Yes, wherein the massive ego thing would be a good comparison between the two Chuck Yeager didn't spend the rest of his life writing books and giving interviews telling one lie after the other about England like Brown did about America, he was a compulsive liar when it came to America, I'm not talking about American aircraft, I'm talking about his nonsense claims like having seen Adolf Hitler shake Jessie Owens' hand, tell that to any historian and they'll probably die of laughter right in front of you, the entire world knows that Hitler got up and walked out of the 36 Olympics when Owens was crossing finish lines and setting records because it publicly embarrassed Hitler after all his talk about the Aryian race being supreme, the reason Brown made that claim is because he knows it's an embarrassing thing for America that FDR didn't invite Owens to the White House like all other gold metal athletes do, so he figured if he could convince people that Hitler shook Owens' hand that really makes FDR and America look bad.
Other lies I've heard him tell is the nonsense claim that he had it on good authority that the Horten Flying Wing was assembled in secret in America in the 50's and test flown, which he followed up by saying that "it was a shame that it wasn't flown by a 'proper' test pilot because so much could have been learned from it", another far fetched tale that he made up so he could throw that little jab about test pilots in it implying America doesn't have any of his caliber, what a joke, he didn't even have a degree in anything, and the whole world knows that piece of junk Horten disaster never flew, the workmanship in it is not anything close to being airworthy from them continually cutting things apart and rewelding them when they were building the pile of crap, no test pilot in the world would have gotten in that thing after inspecting it, it's a death trap that'd kill anyone who tried flying it just like their previous one did, the Hotens weren't advanced enough to understand the unique things needed to control a flying wing which is why their test pilots died.
But his biggest lie has to be his claim that Jimmy Doolittle ask him to solve "problems with US aircraft", oh god that man was a liar, right, Jimmy Doolittle who had a doctorate in aeronautics, the first man to fly an all instrumental flight, first man to perform an outside loop, one of the greatest pioneers in aviation who also had the entire resources of the USAAF and NACA at his disposal went to Eric Brown to ask him for help, a man with no degree in anything, what a laugh that is.
Yea, far worse than Yeager.
PPS. Great Video! About Eric Brown and his 60 Lbs. figure of force on the stick. The guys who worked on the Goodyear Aerospace Simulator Dome in Taif, KSA, also reached the same conclusions and at least three of the instructor pilots were WW-II aces and claimed that they could do things that others could not. None of them flew P-51s IRL. (2X P-47s and 1X P-38.)
I love watching your videos because they bring back so many great memories from way back when. Keep up the good work.
I took tactical Mach limit as the speed at which you can still effectively maneuver the aircraft before all your efforts are focused on just recovery doe to the aircraft reaching its critical Mach limit but thank you for bringing that up to people
I understood this non-objective term to mean the same thing. But, they don't define it anywhere. Other that in the phrase itself. "Beyond which it is no longer useful for tactics".
Greg,
I have followed you for quite sometime now. I have learned a wealth of in depth knowledge about some of my favorite planes with the best when you do comparisons. I’ve also had the opportunity to own two of your shirt designs. I think you cover some things to the finest detail as possible when able to. The work/narration involved shows the effort you put into each video presentation.
Greg I am very happy to have found your channel. I really have enjoyed your videos and I like watching the DCS gameplay. I’ve just gotten back into flight sims and predominantly fly IL2, and love the Jug. I will eventually get into DCS.
I'm looking forward to watching it. Have a safe trip!
Was so happy to see a new extended length video was available for my flight from Melbourne to Perth this evening by Greg. Cannot express my gratitude enough in words. Signed, a long term patreon.
Thanks, I hope it helps pass the time, and I appreciate your support.
What an absolute fountain of information you are Greg. Thanks, your videos are eagerly anticipated.
So, I learned not only the limitations of specific aircraft today, but also the limitations of books and authors. I think we have similar personalities. I try to state as accurately as possible what I know to be true, or give my estimates of how far I could be off, and I don't like being misquoted or have my caveats left out. In other words, I am a conscientious person who is more often than not correct. So, I sympathize with your responses to the criticism you get. I hope you get the sense that many others on this channel feel the same way. We greatly appreciate your diligence in creating excellent and accurate content. BTW, great shooting in DCS. I am glad you are on our side.
I truly enjoyed listening to your talk while watching you fly. It's my favorites of your vids.
Wow, thanks, it's hasn't been a popular video, but I'm happy with the way it turned out.
Just keep doing what you are doing man. Your detailed research and full explanations are what make your videos brilliant.
Thank you.
MiG-25's speed is limited by heat from the aerodynamic drag, and at altitude depends of the metheorogical and regional conditions, that were sometimes very favorable above Egypt and Israel. MiG-25R that was clocked M3.2 over Sinai was piloted by a test pilot. He got the order "from above" to disregard instruction from the MiG buerau monitoriing team about Mach limit. Engines WERE removed, but for inspection.
I could listen to this stuff all day!
What? A WWII veteran with a large ego made a post-war self-aggrandizing claim that contradicts all other primary sources? Wow, I've never heard that one before.
Probably propaganda to boost morale
Awww yis. No matter the work day I grin when there's more Greg
I have not read into the topic too much. So take it with a grain of salt. But I have "dealt" with the topic since I am flying flight sims for now almost 10 years. But my personal interpretation is that the germans would have gone with mine shells in either case because they found or thought mineshells are more effective against any air target. Regardless of construction. While metal is less prone to HE damage, a HE hit still leaves large holes (much larger than the projectiles diameter) and causes heavy aerodynamic damage (they also added a incendiary component). On top of that the rifle calibre and heavy machine gun armament (7.9mm and later 13mm) and as mainly amour piercing capabilities. But even in the case of the 13mm they still added HE filler to the belts. The MK 151 belts also contained an AP projectile every X shot.(I believe every 3rd)
I think there was even a change of doctrine later in the war to remove AP from cannon belts and add in more HEI.
The trend to add more HE(I) to the german armament basically went on until the end of the war. And this also happened on the western front. Indicating that wooden planes were not the main thought. Even tho a higher effectiveness against an IL-2 was certainly welcome.
also the 151 was shooting most certainly a mixed ammo belt and not only mine shells.
Thanks Sheriff.
Love whatcha do Greg, best plane content on TH-cam hands down.
Not even close to the best.
Greg,your doing a great job! How refreshing it is to hear someone that knows his history,knows his aircraft. Republic Aviation produced the best aircraft that did all the hard work and won wars Republic Aviation rules My father flew 139 missions in the F-105 flying two tours and a IP in the F-105 in between.He loved that jet.
Thanks Richard. A lot of people who flew the F-105 loved it. Today it seems a bit forgotten, which is a shame.
Love the format, very zen and entertaining. Make s'more please!
Thanks, I'm glad you liked this video, I enjoyed making it. However it's been a failure in terms of views by the normal standards of this channel.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles I totally get the allure of the presentation styled video, but your channel is pretty eclectic: by design, it feels. Personally, I think that the fact that you enjoyed making it should be the focus of your channel! (because it shows and that's engaging content, even if unexpected at first...)
Oh I can't wait to get a load of the angry authors part, this should be good, and I have the feeling it's going to anger fans of certain authors.
Fun fact about ME109's I just uncovered, the first one ever shot down was by an American, Frank Glasgow Tinker ex US Navy pilot flying for the Republicans during the Spanish Civil War, and he was also the first one to shoot down more than 1 although not consecutively, someone else shot one down between his 1st and 2nd ones.
Tinker was hanging around with Ernest Hemingway during the Spanish Civil War and afterwards wrote a book about his experiences called Some Still Live, critics who like Hemingway say it's a good read and very much in Hemingway's style, during the war Tinker drew maps of the locations of the airstrips used by the Republicans and Nationalists along with other information not recorded by anyone else, his book is considered to be the best source of information about the air war due to lack of official documentation by either side and historians consider it to be the best source of reference material when doing research about the air war aspect of the Spanish Civil War, I'm getting it next to read.
Speaking of angry people I just got done reading Tommy Blackburn's book Jolly Rogers, Blackburn was the commander of VF-17, they were one of the first two units carrier qualified with the F4U in early 43 and they were who worked directly with Vought to improve the F4U resulting in the F4U-1A, his book covers the real reason why the F4U was removed from carrier service which had nothing to do with it being too difficult to land on carrier's, not for US Navy pilots anyway, it was because in his words the F4U was "over engineered" leading half of them to constantly being deadlined, that coupled with a shortage of spare parts and even worse a shortage of qualified maintenance crews prompted the Navy to remove it from carrier service in favor of the much simpler engineered and far easier to maintain F6F that didn't have a shortage of spare parts and qualified maintenance crews like the F4U did, apparently the Navy felt a plane that half were usually deadlined that had a lack of spare parts and maintenance crews wasn't the best choice for a carrier aircraft, imagine that.
The reason they were returned to carrier service was because in June of 1944 the Japanese launched their Kamikaze campaign in ernest, the thought that a single explosive laden plane could possibly sink a ship or at least kill hundreds of men had the Navy return the F4U to carrier service because of it's climb rate of over 4,200 ft per minute compared to the F6F's 3,600 ft per minute rate along with it's faster top speed, the thinking being that a squadron of F4U's would be put on each Essex class carrier, and in the event of a Kamikaze attack the F4U's would launch first and using their superior climb rate and speed intercept the incoming Kamikaze's with F6F's launching behind them to intercept any that made it through the F4U's, by the time they were returned to carrier service there was no longer shortages of qualified maintenance crews and spare parts.
That's the real story behind why the Navy removed the F4U from carrier service then returned it later, not the common fairytale about US Navy pilots supposedly not being able to land their own airplane on their own carrier's until someone came along and taught them how, just because someone in a pub made that claim one day or some aviation writer who knew his target audience would love hearing a story like that put it in a book of his years ago and it caught on because it conveniently fits over a timeline of events doesn't make it true, there's no evidence to support it beyond "We say so", wherein the real story is supported by documented facts like written orders by the Navy's ComAirLand department responsible for all Navy aircraft explaining why F4U's were to be removed from carrier service.
I just love facts that bust bedtime story myths, especially myths created by people taking credit for something they have no right to, and it's fun watching the smug drain right out of the sails of people who gleefully spread myths like that all over the place.
Excellent and fascinating comment about the F4U! I always heard too it was too hard to land, your explanation makes more sense
QUOTE: "That's the real story behind why the Navy removed the F4U from carrier service then returned it later, not the common fairytale about US Navy pilots supposedly not being able to land their own airplane on their own carrier's until someone came along and taught them how [....] there's no evidence to support it beyond "We say so", wherein the real story is supported by documented facts like written orders by the Navy's ComAirLand department responsible for all Navy aircraft explaining why F4U's were to be removed from carrier service."
I haven't read anywhere that the Corsair was bumped from USN carrier service for a period because aviators couldn't safely land the beast on a carrier - but it was definitely delayed from initial carrier service for a host of reasons including a nasty tendency to drop the left wing during landing - all major problems solved one by one. Do you have an authoritative source that makes that claim or are you referring to internet forums etc?
Through reading over many years I understood that the true narrative is exactly as you've presented it - a mixture of reasons to do with logistics & practicality. Regarding the Corsair curving landing approach - this was first used by the RN FAA because they already used that exact landing approach with the Seafire [which has a long V12 nose] - I think it's true that the USN picked up this tip from the RN as they'd used the deadly straight on approach. The straight on method: the FAA fliers were taught this in training in the USA. I think it's correct to say that there was a cross pollination between the USN & the Senior Service. :)
I've just found this in the SMITHSONIAN AIR & SPACE MAGAZINE. Cory Graff. June 2021.
[...] Despite more hair-raising attempts to make the Corsair carrier-ready, conducted by Navy squadrons VF-12 and VF-17, most of the original aircraft found a home in Marine Corps combat squadrons flying from - and more importantly, landing on - island bases.
Over time, Vought engineers and men in the field implemented upgrades to the promising but troubled fighter. Greater air pressure in the airplane’s landing gear oleo easily eliminated much of the pronounced bounce. For a better view from the cockpit, designers replaced the “birdcage” canopy with a frameless clear “bubble.” The additional head space allowed the pilot’s seat to be raised by eight inches. An improved F4U-1A was in the Pacific with the Marines in the summer of 1943.
But it was the British Royal Navy’s Fleet Air Arm who came up with the concept that brought Corsairs to sea duty for good. The pilots developed a long, curving landing approach to keep the carrier’s deck in sight until the last moments before touchdown[...]
@@rich7787
Yea, the narrative that they'd wanted all along to use it on carrier's but had to wait until someone showed them how to land them on carrier's doesn't make any sense, why would they have been chomping at the bit to replace F6F's that had a kill to loss ratio of 19 to 1 with the F4U that had an 11 to 1 ratio?
When you hold that story that's always been going around up to facts it falls apart, before I even read Blackburn's book I searched high and low for confirmation of it, I couldn't find one written order for a US Navy pilot or unit to report somewhere to be trained by them, not one single US Navy pilot that either says they went somewhere to be trained or even one that verify's the story even though 2nd hand knowledge of it, not a single picture of a US Navy pilot with those who supposedly showed the Navy how to do it or a single film of a US Navy F4U landing on a carrier using their technique, every landing film I looked at showed them being landed using the same method they used for every other aircraft they landed on carrier's during WW2 which is exactly how Blackburn describes how they landed them in his book, as soon as they'd pass the carrier on the downwind leg with their gear and flaps down they'd count to 30 seconds, then turn to the left and straighten out lining up with the carrier (which put them more than 30 seconds behind the carrier since while they flew for 30 seconds after passing it it'd been steaming forward), at about 200 yards from the carrier's stern they'd quit flying the aircraft themselves and start taking control input commands from the LSO who could be seen to the left of the nose despite the nose blocking the view of the deck, not being able to see the deck made no difference since the way they did it with every other aircraft was the same, you shouldn't be watching the deck anyway you're supposed to be watching the LSO, he's the one whose flying the airplane at that point anyway.
VF-17 had carrier qualified on the converted steamship USS Charger in the Chesapeake Bay in the first month's of 1943 after being formed on January 1st, while getting qualified Vought sent people to work directly with VF-17 to work on improving the F4U which resulted in the F4U-1A, Vought promised them that they'd receive the very first F4U-1A's produced, after being carrier qualified they were assigned to the brand new Essex class carrier USS Bunker Hill, the two did their work up together in the Gulf of Paria just off the coast of Trinidad, after returning to Norfolk as promised by Vought there were brand new F4U-1A's waiting for them, before departing the skipper told Blackburn something he'd been fearing all along knowing that the F4U was a high maintenance aircraft that left them with half of them deadlined all the time, the skipper told him he'd been informed by the Admiral that all F4U's were to be removed from carrier service and that all carrier qualified squadrons were to be checked out on the F6F as replacements, but he told Blackburn that he'd had a talk with the Admiral and the two of them agreed that since VF-17 had worked so hard on making the F4U into a carrier capable fighter that if Blackburn felt they could keep them then he'd see what he could do, Blackburn told him in absolutely certain terms that VF-17 felt that the F4U was the best aircraft for them, so the skipper talked to the Admiral and he gave them permission to deploy with them, so VF-17 left Norfolk with their new F4U-1A's on the Bunker Hill bound for the Solomon Islands Campaign, but unfortunately it wasn't over yet, when they put in at Pearl Harbor for provisions they were informed that ComAirLand had sent written orders that all F4U's were to be removed from carrier service citing the lack of spare parts and qualified maintenance crews as the reason, with that there was nothing the Admiral could do for them, it was out of his hands.
At Pearl Harbor VF-17 was removed from the Bunker Hill and replaced with an F6F squadron, they were then loaded onto another carrier that transported them to the Solomon's where they occupied the island airstrip on Espiritu Santo.
By the time they left Espiritu Santo and after just 76 days of combat VF-17 emerged the most successful F4U unit in history with 154.5 aerial victories credited to them and another 27 probably destroyed and 25 damaged, yea right, that sounds like a bunch of guy's who couldn't figure out how to land their own aircraft on their own carrier's and had to have someone else show them how to do it, what a bunch of malarkey that fairytale is.
That's all very interesting. I will be very curious how this is accepted even if you are correct and there really are no true sources regarding them being too difficult to land.
One thing that comes to my mind is that if the Corsair had a tendency to drop a left wing then it seems like a left curving approach would make it worse as the left wing is inside the turn and has slower air moving over it. Thus, it would tend to stall faster.
I almost wonder if the leading edge mods were made after the curved approach was found to be preferred.
One thing I've noticed is that mentioning Greg's work elsewhere seems to get a lot of people worked up. It's very interesting how vile some get. Yet, no one ever cites a real source to contradict him. Just more cliche.
Only the F4U-4 had over 4200 fpm in climb rate (appearing in 1945, barely a WWII type). At 3600 the F6F likely climbed better than the F4U-1d, which I remember as capable of not much above 2400 or 3000 fpm at the very most... The -4 was a massive step up in climb from earlier variants. The reasoning you offer might still apply, but I doubt it concerned the climb rate of 1944 F4U variants.
gotta love your videos, and much appreciate the DCS segments, too!
I'm not sure about your CFS skills, but As far as easy listening tech goes while painting the house you are a true ace! I took on full drop tanks and am in for the entire mission!
What is cfs? 😀
@@gregorteply9034Combat Flight Simulator, like DCS.
@@Clowndoe thanks
I've come to hold Greg as one of my favorite sources for the sort of in-depth technical discussion of aviation, particularly in the WW2 era, that keeps me enthralled while boring my friends and relatives to tears.
In other words, just my sort of chap. I could imagine having a very informative and fascinating discussion of any number of winged things over a pint.
I find it hilarious that anyone would dislike you Greg. Your obviously the more popular TH-camrs on the subjects you've continued to ace. Some people are just odd I guess. Anyway another very interesting video. Thanks
Excellent Greg, you may want to check the video discussing wether the P-47 or P-51 was the better fighter, that’s on the “Australian Military Aviation History” channel here on YT. Quite a debate developed there and it involves much of the topics you covered here.😉
I'm just happy that it's a debate. Ten years ago nobody was talking about this.
There's no such thing as "the best fighter" of WW2 or even one that can be proven better than any others, there's only people's favorites.
It's impossible to come up with some kind of a formula to prove a case, total kills and kill to loss ratios don't prove anything because of all the different circumstances and conditions that they fought under, at the end of the day people just have a favorite one and they'll argue for it but it's impossible to quantify any kind of results.
It's like this whole thing about the P47's critical Mach number, at the end of the day so what, even if it is as low as the Eric Brown deciples claim based on his say so apparently it's not that important considering the P47's combat record, the fact that a bunch of guy's new to aerial warfare showed up in it and shot down Luftwaffe pilots from when the Luftwaffe was at it's height speaks volumes, they were fighting against pilots who'd survived the Spanish Civil War, the Battle of Britain and fighting in the east and they still shot them down at 7 to 1, even more every time one of those Luftwaffe pilots with a ridiculously high score got sent to the west from the east they were promptly blasted out of the sky by P47's, those are really the only things that matter.
@@dukecraig2402Agreed!👍🏻👍🏻
@@dukecraig2402it also shouldn't be underestimated the disadvantages the allied escorts were placed at, flying much further from any bases meant, less options to return home with damage, less ground control support and more fuel restrictions.
@@charlesfowler4308
Oh yea, chances are if they had to bail out they weren't doing it over friendly territory, I've read and heard in more than one interview with pilots who said that they were worried about making it all the way across the Channel and faced with the prospects of dying from hypothermia within minutes of being in the water they determined within seconds it was better to become a POW and bailed out over German held territory, about the only real concern there is you don't want to bail out over a place you just got done dropping bombs on, more than once Wermacht troops had to show up and save downed members of bomber crews from angry villagers with clubs and pitchforks, those bomber crews knew it was best to ride it out as far away from where you just dropped your bombs as possible, I read once of a P51 pilot who was killed by townspeople who mistakingley thought that rounds impacting on the ground from dogfighting above them was the planes strafing them.
Second time watching this, I just realized how few people know our care about Greg's channel who fly this flight sim... kinda weird. I love this channel and if Greg wanted a 1v1, I think most people would be up for it. But probably most people watching this don't have this game, but just love hearing Greg narrate anything aviation.
Thanks, I do love DCS, but this isn't a DCS channel specifically.
Greg, I watch your videos for the thoroughness of your evaluations and caveats facing uncertainties. You seek truth and call out when fog is present. I also am a WWII buff, of sorts. So your content and especially your methods attract me.
These attract me because I was fortunate during my early 20s to have a job evaluating information on chemicals’ toxic effects. This was fortunate because I reviewed the vast majority (all?) of sources available and discovered there can be a lot of “fog” in the scientific literature. This effort included peer-reviewed scientific literature…with mistakes, contradictions, and uncertainty. The value of the skepticism I developed served me well in my scientific and engineering career.
Thanks for the video. Always learning something new.
On the MiG-19 subject, not arguing who had better firepower at that point in time, but keep in mind that those were the days when guns were deleted from aircraft more often than added. MiG-19 started life as a 3-gun fighter, and it swapped pretty quickly to NR-30 mm cannons, but we don't have that variant simulated in DCS. We have MiG-19P, an all-weather interceptor version which was developed simultaneously with the tactical fighter, and which was more of an equivalent to F-102 rather than F-100. Eventually that path of development would led to missile-only MiG-19PM with all guns removed.
Good point on the discrepancy in Russian aircraft performance and other more elusive factors that are hard to convey in the world of flight simulators. A topic definitely worth a full video, although it's always a controversial subject whenever it's mentioned. I remember those arguments on the old Il-2 forums 20 years ago. Some things never change...
as always
solid content greg
thank you for your awesome channel
I fully agree with the fact of authors being stuck with what they have written and their reluctance to change their position after they are proven wrong.
Even though such occurrences are more prominent in books, unfortunately, the same happens with some historians, here on TH-cam. There is no need to mention names, but some, after they have spent weeks, or even months developing a narrative, find themselves thereafter very reluctant to correct their work, instead choosing to double down, thus incurring massive holes in their reputation.
This is completely unnecessary, frustrating for those who have explored the topic, and misleading for those who are just beginning to learn about it.
In my book, there is enormous grace in admitting one's mistake, correcting it, leaning from it and avoiding it in the future.
Thanks for Your time and efforts Greg.
Back in the day in Microsoft Combat Flight Simulator the FW 90 was almost impossible to shoot down. It was ridiculously immune to 50bmg rounds.
I spent many hours on MS flight sims and found them to provide a surprisingly realistic flying experience; however, watching a real pilot flying here is an eye opener. You fly the simulated FW 90 as if it’s a real plane.
In Jane's WWII fighters as a kid, the AI FW was unbeatable on ace level. It would handily out-run a P-51, fly out to 1.2mi ahead, loop into a head-on pass with four cannons, and two Mgs blazing. They rarely missed.
Greg is the man. You make my day better.
Greg, your videos are informative and entertaining. Thanks for making them! I really appreciate it.
I watch every video you
Post that I can, I love these ww2 aero stories, even if I hadn’t had an interest in that previous topic
Re: Mine shells
I think I recall it was about muzzle velocity. The allied Hispano guns had a high MV, the much lighter German ones not. While low weight is great, low MV wasn't, so light weight shell to the rescue. Conveniently filled with a lot of explosives for effect.
You're probably more correct than most will give you credit.
From the firearm side, gun weight is highly dependent on caliber, but also chamber pressure. Chamber pressure translates into velocity of a given mass. A large caliber is larger mass, all things being equal.
If you have a lightweight, low pressure gun for arial work, lightning the projectile will translate into improved muzzle velocity. But possibly lower downrange velocity, ideally at a range beyond effective engagement distance. Even with lower velocity at the target, having a substantial amount of explosives in the projectile is going to help a lot when dealing with wood, and sheet skinned aluminum aircraft. I suspect also very effective against light stringers and aux spars. But, it appears by P-47 durability, and German desire for 30mm against bombers, I would say 20mm was ineffective against heavy built up aluminum spars and probably steel components and trusses as well.
How are you snapshotting to enemies at around 14:00? I've never seen that in DCS before. Same with 18:38, you snapshot and highlight under your wing? Is that a binding?
That's padlock, it's not available in all servers, some consider it cheating. I feel it makes up for the limitations of a computer.
What does it do exactly? Nearest enemy or nearest plane?@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles
While floating around on the interweb I ran into a royal aeronautical society paper by JAD Ackroyd about the aerodynamics of the spitfire.It’s quite interesting although I don’t have the knowledge to completely understand it. There is a graph with some Mach numbers of various fighters including the p47 which seems to put it at around 0.73 if I understand it correctly.
That format was fun to watch, Greg. Outstanding, as usual.
I don't understand why people attack you!! You seem like an awesome guy!! I have a tremendous amount of respect for you and your videos!! You know so much about airplanes and cars! I am a machinist and understand everything you say, and it all makes sense to me! Don't let crazy people on TH-cam bother you. When you put yourself out there, there are always some nut jobs who come out of the woodwork and will attack you! I would say the vast majority love your videos!! You go into so much detail, and I always learn something i didn't know, and I know a lot!
Thanks, and it doesn't bother me. I appreciate your comment.
Yes please do an in-depth video of the MiG-19/F-6 and it's varying performance from it's different operators.
Hey can you provide a link for the Eric Brown interview you're referring to? In the one I'm watching he never actually mentions "tactical" Mach limit, though he does pretty much describe it the same way: "the Me-109 could maneuver up to Mach 0.78". The only ones I've seen are the Dronescapes videos, and they're all of the same two interview sessions just with different parts included...
Nevermind that, I must have missed it last time but you did say it was from his book which I haven't got.
Hi Greg. On the subject of the Mig-15 cannon, years ago I read that the Mig armament was optimised for shooting bombers while the F-86 was optimised for fighters. What’s your opinion on that? Personally I’m not convinced because Soviet fighter designs back to the LaGG-3, Yak-1 and MiG-3 all have that “two small guns and a big one” armament, and suspect they just scaled up over time.
Also more of a maintenance or training problem I guess, but when Royce Williams had his dogfight over Korea he reported such trajectory separation between the Mig guns that the 23s were passing overhead and the 37s below.
Well, it was quite a bit of time between LaGG-3, Yak-1 and MiG-3 and Mig-15. Include whole ww2. And Russians study heavily German experience in ww2. American heavy bombers surely had been a biggest concern for soviet air force. Especially till surface-to-air missiles had been quite developed.
I don't think American bombers were a special concern, it merely justified what had already been done. Even American planes would commonly have rifle caliber machine guns mixed with .50s during the 1930s. The smaller caliber guns give more time on target for a given weight, or just less weight and therefore more performance.
Now think in terms of socialist dictatorships that have to prove they are better than capitalist systems. Fail to meet expectations and face a purge. How do you convince your politicos who are not engineers or pilots that what you designed and built is better? Throwing in a bigger gun is an easy way to convince them its better. You can see this in their tank production as well. Another way is to show that what you built is as fast or faster, or climbs better. Never mind the sacrifices made to get there; no brakes no heaters no trim no ventilation no boosted controls - just read off the specs. Hell, Greg even mentions the speed of the Mig-25. Mach 3+ aircraft if you destroy the engines! I wonder how fast an F-15 or 14 could go if you removed their stops and let them self destruct too.
So ya, across the board there appears to be a press for specs for the sake of the press, the propaganda value. @@vladimirpecherskiy1910
Sitting here playing war thunder in my DO 335 A while watching gregs battle and listening to his narrative 😂 Love ya work Greg
If you like that, try upgrade to the Do-335 B2.
Opening with "greetings" can be chilling to those of a certain age who were once expecting to receive military draft notices starting with that word!
lol
"Kurt, we need a mine cannon on the one-nine-oh!" - Kurt flips two birds as his office is bugged.
Your argument about short service life and disappointing performance of Soviet planes is spot on. When you look into Soviet tanks (especially WWII ones, but also a later ones), quality issues, material shortages and design issues were rampant and alarmingly common. When you add in spotty training and lower level of educations and knowledge of Soviet operators, you have a situation when even Soviet leadership thinks people are sabotaging their work and machines on purpose because they are constantly breaking down. So when planes are having the same issues as tanks, it's the system that failed here.
Thanks for mentioning pointe du hoc, what a rabbit hole that proved out to be.
Yup, it's deep alright. Glad I could help.
Not an engineer or a pilot, but my guess is that the comment about the build quality of the P-51 translates pretty well to a LOT of fairly elaborate mechanical devices, and - if museum displays are any indication - to a lot of other aircraft, military and civilian alike.
nice long video greg
In regard to penetration of cannon shells... I think Greg is thinking too much in terms of penetration. The reality is that aluminum skinned planes, and even heavier aluminum structures, just dont require a lot of penetrating ability. You can only make the shell so big and so heavy for a given caliber, might as well maximize its damage beyond just punching a hole in the target. Suppose you fire a shell at an enemy and the shell enters the engine compartment. Which would you prefer, slightly better penetration, or a lot more explosives? I think it's a philosophy thing, not a target materials thing.
You must have missed the part where he said that it didn't make any difference with bombers because they had very little armor on them and penetrating their skin wasn't a problem.
And to answer your question if you put one into the engine compartment you definitely want one with penetration and lots of shell fragments being splattered all over the place, that's why all the modern ammo for the destruction of aircraft is made that way like the ammo we had on the Vulcan gun I was an air defense gunner on, modern jets are basically flying engine compartments compared to WW2 aircraft, they don't have all the big open area's like WW2 aircraft had inside of them except for bombers and missile's are the principle weapons used for them in thos day and age, those MINE type shell's had virtually no shrapnel qualities to them.
The reason the Germans used those in WW2 wasn't because they were worried about their effect on engine's, the way they were designed to work was to overpressurize the inside of a fuselage or wing and rupture it like a balloon which would break the stringers and any other load bearing members causing it to break right there, and their 30mm was far more effective at doing that than their 20mm, the RAF and the USAAF conducted tests where they took captured 20 and 30mm cannons and fired them into the fuselages of Lancaster's and B17's, the results showed that especially with the 30mm the structural integrity from the overpressurizing balloon effect broke almost every one of the stringers and other load bearing members, but there was hardly any shrapnel type of damage, when firing into an engine compartment shrapnel is far more important because you're looking to poke holes in fuel and oil lines, oil coolers, coolant lines and anything else that'll bleed out or cause engine problems like the intake manifold, a high explosive only shell would blow panels off more than poke holes in the kind of things you want holes poked in, the German MINE shell's didn't even really enter the aircraft, they exploded when only about half way through the skin with the overpressurizing of that area happening from the explosive force blowing through the skin to the inside.
The channel WWII US Bombers has a video on the 20 and 30mm gun tests during the war complete with the USAAF reports on them along with pictures of the results of the test fuselages being shot, check it out, it's very insightful to the kind of damage they were looking to do with those MINE shell's.
@@dukecraig2402don't go giving him facts with his philosophy
Hi Greg, I appreciate your breadth of topics, research of original sources, and detailed analyses of the issues. What PC peripherals do you use for flying Sims?
Track IR, thrustmaster pedals and Logitech X56 HOTAS.
👍@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles
30:20 You can't feather your prop in the 190? Or is this just in the game... You'd think that would be an option to optimize your glide range
You can't feather the prop in the 190A8. That's actually typical of single engine airplanes.
Love your commentary, smart flying in that 190A
This seems like the right community to ask this question, so hopefully someone sees this.
Is cowl flap drag an issue of the flaps extending outward and interrupting the air stream, or is it an issue with the airflow through the radiator?
If it's the first, why were cowl flaps designed to stick out when they could just as easily fold inward or be sliding doors?
I believe I saw on the Poliparkov I-16, that the radiator is opened by a disk with matching cutouts that rotates to open or cover the inlets and that seems more aerodynamic/efficient?
In the case of a cowl like the F4F, it seems like those fins that hinge on the front and stick out like airbrakes, could instead hinge on the back and press inward to open the air channel.
It's both, but mostly airflow though the radiator core or cooling fins, or whatever it's going through.
I like the format!!
I can't find any info on the Mig-15 shooting down a B-29 with rockets.
That's the problem with this format. I can't put evidence on screen as I usually do.
As regards German cannons, I think people conflate the 20mm MG151 mine shells with the 30mm MK101/3/8 cannons. The former show a more clear shift from general use 20mm HE shells over to the specialized variants, while the latter are almost exclusively seen used for the anti-bomber role due to their size and time of introduction (ignoring the antitank uses here). When taking into account that the MG FF had to be changed into the MG FF/M to use the new mine shells, it makes more sense that the MG 151 was intended from the ground up to be able to use the mine shells, but were able to use other types as well.
I think a lot has to do with the operating mechanism of the gun. The MG FF and the Mk 108 were API blowback guns, where the strength of the spring has to be tightly tuned to the shell being fired. The Mg 151 was a short recoil operated gun, which is a bit more flexible wrt different ammunition weights.
I hadn't considered the operating mechanism, which goes some length to explaining the differences. Using War Thunder for quick reference (forgive me), I certainly see more shell types and weights for the 151 than the Mk 108 or even Mk 103. Looks like the latter only has mine shells for explosive types while the Mg 151 has at least 3 different AP-type shells. The MG FF only lists APHE and AP-I. @@jbepsilon
I must apologize in advance, Greg, but I had to come back to this video. I love this channel so much that I had to share my honest, researched, hopefully unbiased opinion.
After going through my library of Eric Brown videos, and after analyzing the interviews in question, I realized that has been a big misunderstanding. Not by you, I presume, but by viewers who comment on your videos.
First, we must untie the notion that Jimmy Doolittle went "hat in hand" to Farnborough. He didn't. He didn't have to.
As Eric Brown explains in a couple of interviews, when the American bombers started to bomb at high altitude, the American escorting fighters, while diving to intercept German fighters were getting into compressibility problems, resulting in the loss of planes as well as pilots.
Doolittle was aware of the high altitude research at Farnborough, and since the planes were already there, in the very environment in which they went into combat, it made sense for him to ask Farnborough to replicate the reports from B-17 crews. Not with hat in hand, not in any subordinate fashion, he simply asked Farnborough to look into it, which the British gladly did.
In regards to tactical Mach number, that was something that the research group at Farnborough invented, yes, but that's how research goes. A concept has to be invented at one point or another. In this case, it referred to the maximum Mach number at which an aircraft could maneuver without danger of compressibility. We should avoid the temptation to brush it off as "something which they came up with" simply because early U.S. fighters scored poorly according to it. It didn't take long for the U.S. to come up with a fighter which did greatly at high altitudes.
For reference, in the TH-cam video "WarBirds of World War II : Fighter Tactics 101", at minute 12:54, a WWII American pilot recalls the difficulties of maneuvering with 109's at high altitude.
In the video you referenced they are talking about the P-38 and compressability. Not exactly news, it's well established that the 109 had a higher Mach limit than the P-38. The P-47 is another matter. I didn't cover the P-38 in this video at all.
Hello, in one of your videos I saw you list a bunch of other aviation youtubers you thought were worth watching but I cannot remember what video it was in. I was wondering if you wouldn't mind giving me some as it's hard to know what channels are good or not
The other reason Soviet (and not only) pilots flew with canopies open (at least in Yaks) was that (backed up by many Polish pilots memoirs from WW2) the perspex glass used in canopies became yellow and harder to see through quite quickly.
Yes, and in some cases it would frost up during a dive.
they also had a problem with getting the canopy back or even off to bail out. Russian fighters had no jettison system in their early inline fighters. It took direct combat to get the factories to fit the means to get the canopy open in a crisis.
@@michaelbevan3285first thing was mentioned in the video. I’m not aware of any early inline props with jettison seats
Greg, you’re fighting the most data - resistant cult in aviation. I doubt you’ll make much of a dent, but thanks for the outstanding effort.
Thanks William. I think you're correct.
57:27 Both brutal and funny. Good job Greg
“Soviet fighters had a tendency to leak carbon monoxide into the cockpit. That’s a big problem.”
I love how Greg talks simply when addressing the Soviet fanboys.
Winkle Brown climbed into the Thunderbolt's cockpit and promptly got lost, he clambered into the seat muttering "this is a large aircraft" in his inimitably polite way. I recall Abbott and Costello and the sisters who sang Bugle Boy...see what I mean? I can't get the Pointer Sisters Neutron Dance out of my head.
Wild that people would get super hostile over this stuff but then again we have seen it before on the internet. Long video but definitely a good one to listen to and retouch alot of the previous videos. When talking about the mine cannon rounds we are talking about minegeschloß right or am I thinking of a different round.
During my two tours in FRG, my landlord in the first tour was an old NAZI Ace and he hung out with other German aces. They all claimed that the standard mix of ammo types was one AP-HE-I, one mine shell and one conventional HE-I shell with tracer! So every third round was a Mine shell, or AP-HE-I, or Conventional HE-I shell. Each type of shell had a specific effect that worked best Vs a particular type of plane, or part of a plane. The high concentration of tracer rounds made A2A gunnery much easier. It was nearly impossible to kill or wound the pilot behind the seat back armor without the AP-I round and the pilot was considered the most vulnerable and easiest vital target to force down the plane.
Yes, I wasn't complete there, certain German cannons could fire one shell or the other. Some like the MGFF could not, it had to be set up for one or the other.
If they opened the window was open, did it stay on the a/c?
yes.
God I loved this format so much
it's like our version of a fireside chat but Greg is flying
I ❤Greg’s Channel! - Greg, join us for the 80th Memorial Ceremony on D-Day 2024 and we will visit all the beaches together. I’m either planning an Air Assault with Tyro at the controls or boat arrival if the weather is too bad. Our RV point is Duxford a few days before and then rally at the Omaha Beach Memorial on June 6th.
Thanks Juice. I'm confused thought, is this in real life or on the DCS Normandy map?
In complete agreement with your position on P-47 dive/mach performance. In my 50+ years of aviation research, I've never come across anything from pilots or tech reports to line up with what Eric Brown's account SEEMS to suggest. I can imagine, if Doolittle of the AAF was requesting a test or documents from the RAF, and wanted a timely response, he could well ask that they give this matter some priority. Characterizing that as a hat-in-hand urgent request could well be misconstruing the situation. He might just not have wanted a typical, "we'll put it through channels", 2 month wait for a response.
As you know, Doolittle pioneered in-flight refueling, the Curtiss F11C Goshawk biplane had a "drop" tank, as well as the 1941 P-40C; I think the U.S. HAD drop tank technology well in hand by 1943. Let's see, wasn't that the year we shot down Yamamoto on a long-range mission?
I agree, there were other factors at work preventing availability of drop tanks to P-47s!
I disagree with your theory as to the reason
Minengeschoss was developed, that is to say, beyond the obvious reason of creating more damage. MG/FM was a 1939/1940 modification to that particular gun for that ammo, but subsequent German autocannons were designed to use all rounds interchangeably.
There are RAF reports extensively analyzing explosive cannon shell, and specifically Minengeschoss, performance, because RAF was experiencing damage results that were out of proportion to single shot expectations, both as to blast and shrapnel. None of my research shows Germans experiencing any particular problems downing Soviet a/c, which were single and twin engined, and typically rather lightly protected. The exception was the armored steel portion of the IL-2, but the German 2cm loadout was quickly modified to include API. The MK 108 was specifically developed for 4-engine bombers, and specifically with Minengeschoss in mind; with 3cm hits on a/c, one doesn't need, or even want, AP or ball rounds; the blast effect is so devastating. This was a priority operational use on Western Front, RAF and daylight bomber streams, in both day and night fighters. Heinz Knocke's Bf-109 Wing ("I Flew for the Fuehrer") were early adopters.
In DCS, can you play time periods, other than just late war, wherein all players are limited to using only a/c from that period?
BTW, Spitfire, while beautiful, uses both lapped joints and non-flush rivets for some areas of its airframe; the P-51was a much cleaner airframe. I also think the 109 gets a bit of an undeserved bad wrap for "bulges", underwing cannon and rockets excepted. Have you noticed the cannon bulges, wheel, intake, radiator and rocker cover bulges on late Mark Spitfires? Narrow-tracked Spitfires also had an inordinate share of landing accidents. Brown's account of Spitfire surpassing
.9 mach in dive really puzzles me, as l have Jeffrey Quill's book, "Spitfire Test Pilot", and read the diving test reports...
I've been wondering why Japanese even bothered to develop an APHE round for their 30mm Type 5 cannon. Perhaps against shipping? Similarly army's 30mm Ho-155 had some kind of AP round.
@Teh0X What you suggest makes sense.
From 1937 on, and certainly from 1941, Japan would be in constant assaults against shipping and ground installations, requiring ammunition with better penetration than typically short-timed-fused HE. For the air groups tasked solely with bomber interception, such as over mainland Japan, it would be revealing to know what their types of ammo loadout were for their largest caliber
autocannons.
Practically, meaning logistically, no one desires to have to choose from, which means keep stores of, dozens of different types of ammo. That kind of specialization, besides creating servicing nightmares, is totally unnecessary. The use of explosive AP ammunition against a/c is less about the need for a hardened steel penetrator, and much more about its delayed explosive fusing, enabling it to penetrate into the aircraft interior, rather than bursting on the exterior skining/structure. Against large a/c such as the B-29, this would be important.
Re: the Spitfire rivets, in the Geoffrey Quill book on the history of the Spitfire he noted that the original prototype was fully flush riveted. In order to simplify production and, therefore, time taken to manufacture, they did some wind tunnel experiments with gluing split peas to the fuselage to see what difference it made with parasitic drag. The difference was nil to negligible, so normal raised rivets were subsequently used on the fuselage aft of the cockpit.
do you have a set of peddles and a control stick? A video head set thing? or are you flying with your mouse and arrow keys? i would love this stuff if i had a cockpit and a video head set. that would be sweet.
I'll answer this question in video format.
Thanks Greg. It was an entertaining general topics video. To watch and to listen.
Greg can you do a top 5 dogfighters of WW2 video or a 5 part series starting with no.5 and do a countdown? That would be really interesting and controversial. Best dogfighter doesn't mean best fighter I think most people understand this, but if you found yourself in a 1 on 1 duel in WW2 which plane would you want to be in?
That's a tough video to make, so many variables. It might be fun though.
PS. The German 20 MM HE-I shells came in two Versions, the mine shell which massed 94-96 grams each and the conventional Drilled Bar Stock HE-I shell of about 108-110 Grams Mass. They had 17-18 grams of PETN in the mine shells and 4.5-6 Grams of various types of HE in the conventional shell. The AP-I shell had less explosive but Massed about 108-110 Grams per projectile with a solid nose and a base fuse. MV Varied from 750 M/S for the Mine shell and 705 M/S for the other two types. War time Hisso ammo used a drilled bar-stock shell of about 130 Grams with a flat nosed fuse, or a one caliber ogive for the AP-i shell. With about 4.5-5.6 grams of HE loaded. MV was about 880 M/S Out of the early guns and 840 M/S out of the post war Mk-V Hissos.
An addition to speaking about mineshells in the Battle of Britain. It is possible that they were very effective against the most common fighter at that point for the RAF, the Hurricane, as it had a fabric covered rear half.
at the time they were much more effective that any RAF airplane Armed with the Ridiculous 0.303 rounds .
"...although it's not stated in plane text..."
I am not sure why this subtle accidental pun was so funny to me, maybe because of it being about a flight manual or most likely because my brain is broken.
I thought you explained the Eric Brown P47 mach limit subject quite clearly in the original video, so I was surprised to see you defending that position. He said, she said, facts are to be ignored. There are times when I can't stand the interweb...
I also think that that the P47 Range & Deceit video is historically important, something that should be written as an article for peer review. A PhD will keep you busy when you retire Greg. 👨🎓
P-47 problem with dive was not acceleration but compressibility making it unable to pull out of the dive due to heavy nose down trim at high mach. Split-S from 35k ft renders P-47 unable to pull out until 15k ft or so.
Compressibility flaps made P-47 able to pull out of compressibility dive. No wonder why Bombers crew reports telling that when P-47 went down straight it just disappeared, because it takes time to pull out of that dive. Difficulty to avoid exceed dive speed was in tremendous acceleration in straight down dive. Experienced pilot would know how to avoid entering compressibility and utilizing this acceleration. Early P-51 had same problem when passing around 0.7 mach proposing effect would appeared with total lose of elevator control. Later models got upgrade in change in angle of incidence of horizontal stabilizer and metal upgrade of elevator. Since then P-51 could go 0.8 mach with out lose of control. P-47 resolve this problem with compressibility flaps which provides P-47 with steady pull out force.
Nope, all the tests that established the P-47 Mach limits were on planes built before the recovery flaps showed up. Also no N model ever had the recovery flaps. The altitude loss is a split S is specifically due to the fact that the plane accelerates so well in a dive, that's specifically talked about in the manual, it wasn't the heavy "nose down trim" as you said. Also the greatest amount listed in the manual for altitude loss in a Split S is 15,000 feet, and that from a Split S entered a high speed with the power ON, which was not recommended, specifically because of the rapid acceleration. It has nothing to do with Mach limits. You should probably watch my P-47 dive video. All this stuff is covered.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Yeah they added compressibility flaps just for fun, your logic is pristine.
Manuals clearly states that elevator authority comes back at alt between 18k and 15k ft when P-47 enters compressibility at higher alt. And this one i just read by heaving P-47manual before my eyes.
"Hold steady back pressure on stick, keep ball centered, keep aileron centered, increase power never decrease power at around 15k you should be able to pull out if not use trim to aid but with caution."
Manual also mentions that if significant side slip is present it makes impossible to recover from divie so they advice to use rudder trim to put ball centered perfectly. usually placing rudder trim at (N) does the trick." This are quotes from P-47 prior N manual not P-47N this is different story.
At begging they though that P-47 compressibility problem will be as strong as in P-38 case when P-38 at alt 30k ft power on and put in to 15 degree dive was in compressibility within 15 seconds and nose drops straight down, but still in very deep dives P-47 could enter this compressibility issue.
I didn't say there was no reason to add them, rather that the mach limits in the manuals are not predicated on them being there. The quote from the manual you are posting is for a situation when the plane is in compressability, which by definition means the plane is at or above the Mach limit. The fact that the P-47 can even recover after it's in compressablity is quite impressive, in many planes it would be too late at that point. I really think you should watch my video on Mach limits to gain an understanding of this stuff.
I watch all your videos, and i understand mach limits, im only saying that P47 dive acceleration made it very easy to get in compressibility from high alt dive and going straight down from 35k ft in p47 compressibility was guaranteed if pilot hold dive for about 7k ft if p47 had high speed before dive compressibility came quicker. And this match for me with reports talking about p47 disappearing after dives from the bombers crews.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles When Charles Lindbergh was doing high-altitude tests on P-47 he had hypoxia from oxygen mask malfunction at 40,000 feet and had to go into a full power dive to get down to where there was breathable air. It would be interesting to know what speed he reached doing that!
This has been a truly great week for Greg’s Airplanes & Automobiles. Hey Greg, please consider my comment from the mustang data collection video.
I will when I find it. I have an avalanche of comments right now.
I think you’re right on Brown. He specifically says the p47 “could fight up to a Mach number of .71”. Which lends water to your argument of an acceptable controllability at a given Mach number.
Thanks.