Test Pilot | Where US fighters failed over Europe
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 2 ต.ค. 2024
- The speed of sound, measured as a percentage of Mach, proved to be an impenetrable barrier for propeller-driven aircraft. The increased speed presented difficulties including aerodynamic instability, structural limitations, and engine performance constraints. But the ability of fighters to operate at high Mach speeds - regardless of their maximum level flight speed - proved to be critical at high altitudes.
The Fw-190 and Me-190 had an early head start, able to sustain combat capability at Mach 0.75.
But the US fighters initially sent to escort high altitude B-17 Flying Fortresses - P-38 Lightnings (0.68) and P-47 Thunderbolts (0.71) - lost flight control at significantly lower speeds.
Only the introduction of Mustangs as escort fighters gave the Allies an aircraft able to sustain the high altitude speeds necessary to "mix it" with the 190s and 109s over Germany.
But the highest ever Mach speed for a piston-engined fighter was achieved by the short-range interceptor Spitfire.
Test conducted by British test pilots, including Eric 'Winkle' Brown, reached Mach 0.86 for a standard Spitfire MK IX, to Mach 0.92 for a Spitfire PR Mk XI flown by his colleague, Squadron Leader Anthony F. Martindale.
USER EXPERIENCE
► TH-cam Channel - @ArmouredCarriers
► Website - www.armouredca...
► Twitter - @ArmouredCarrier
RELATED CONTENT
• USER EXPERIENCE ► More User Experience documentaries
• Hellcat F6F: Combat op... ► Hellcat F6F: Combat operations
• F4U Corsair | Taming t... ► F4U Corsair: Taming the beast
SEO hashtags
#documentary #military #ww2 #navy #war #history #airplane #fighter #warthunder #worldofwarships #memories #airplane #aircraftcarrier
Winkle Brown the thinking man's Fighter Pilot. "There are old pilots, and bold pilots. But there are no old bold pilots." Winkle passed away full of years and wisdom. RIP Eric.
You have to be pretty bloody bold to willingly strap yourself into an Me 163. And have an enormous set of testicles.
Douglas Bader
No relationship to Roy Chubby Brown ?
Material with Eric Brown is always an absolute treasure 👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻
yes
Mustangs...Spitfires....Thunderbolts....Lightnings ....and ERIC BROWN....who could ask for more? Thank you for a great post!👍👍👍
@@w8stral Ouch touched a raw nerve! Test flying at Farnbourough using fully instrumented airframes might give accurate figures. Interesting the Spitfire was the oldest design but had the highest Tactical Mach no.
Yes quite agree, Eric relates his experiences very matter of fact. He flew almost every German wartime types.
@@alfretwell428 And tactical Mach means nothing as ZERO aircraft could ever reach tactical mach and even then it still means nothing as power available means everything and empenage mach number which EB never bothered to talk about. And yes EB was wrong about the P47, Spitfire, but 100% right about P38, FW190, and Mustang. Old man, mixing up stories, it is understandable, old men ramble and tell tall tales.
@@w8stral - Yes, do feel free to denigrate the great man in such a disrespectful fashion ....... rest peacefully in the knowledge that he has DONE considerably more than you will ever dream about and further, that he has FORGOTTEN far more that you will ever know.
@@w8stral I think most people would rather believe Eric Brown. Everything this guy did was proven, verified and validated. If you are suggesting you know better, forget it.
I can never get enough of listening to Eric Brown.
What a man.
Captain Brown was very interesting, not only was he an amazing gifted pilot, but he had an analytical mind that was essential to help the engineers solve the problems they were facing. RIP Captain Brown.
He was also fluent in German , which was a great help during the war .
He sounds like a silly old goat past it to me. He's the guy who said the Me262 was faster because it had swept back wings - but it didn't - they were only slightly angled. in this video he makes several mistakes - eg his definition of critical mach number is wrong. he also said a propellor aircraft can't fly faster than mach 1 - also wrong. It was piston engines that were the issue - they can't produce enough power in a given volume and weight.
At best Winkle Brown is a pilot equivalent to my wife, who is a very competent car driver. But she wouldn't know a con rod from a tie rod - she doesn't need to. Winkle Brown no doubt knew as much as anybody about piloting aircraft. But in talking engineering matters, he doesn't have it.
@@keithammleter3824 Silly old goat who still holds the record for the most distinct (as opposed to variants or marks) of aircraft ever flown by a single pilot. 487 distinct aircraft types, a record that will most likely never be broken. He also still holds the record for the most carrier landings by a single pilot. He was the first man to land a twin engine aircraft on a carrier, and the first man to land a jet on a carrier. He was a bit more than a 'competent' pilot. There is a reason he is considered one of, if not the greatest test pilot in history.
So no, he was not at best the pilot equivalent of your wife. He was the pilot equivalent of an F1 driver, or Rally driver, much, much more capable than your wife and likely knows more about the handling characteristics of the aircraft he flew than any mechanic or engineer ever will.
@@alganhar1 : Equivalent of a car driving wife who knows little about how engines work, or equivalent to an F1 driver who knows little about how engine thermodynamics works, Winkle brown still got his facts wrong.
And a chap who was a leading F1 driver in his 20's or 30's is not necessarily so good at age 90 when a) he's forgotten a lot of it, and b) senility is beginning to set in.
In this video, for example, he thought the Me262 had swept back wings giving it quite superior performance. If you look at a plan view of the Me262, it is obvious that it doesn't.
@@keithammleter3824compared to straight winged variant of the Me.262 the sweot-wing version was 25mph faster.
thanks so much for sending Cptn Brown our way again!
he is alive as long as his voice can be heard.
Utterly fascinating! What a fantastic job men like Eric Brown did.
Eric Brown. One of the greatest if not the greatest pilots of all time. Passed away not all that many years ago.
Greatest test pilot, certainly.
Thank you for sharing this.
Its amazing to hear such stories, especially from arguably the greatest test pilot in history.
Certainly the most experienced!
Add to his accolades: Ah, good ol' embellishments during story time! No, the P51 was not a laminar flow wing. It was supposed to be a partially laminar flow wing over first 1/3 chord(it never was) What it was was a fairly smooth(for the time) finished wing+fuselage unlike the Spitfire and why it was 30mph faster with same engine. Spit XIV then achieved a nice SMOOTH wing/fuselage like the Mustang and with a bigger engine was then faster than the B Mustang model.
EB didn't bother to mention the tactical mach number EB talks about is completely and utterly useless in reality as ZERO, well zero piston engine aircraft anyways, me262 might be a different story, aircraft at the time had enough power to come even close to reaching their tactical mach numbers, so the ONLY Mach number which matter were the critical mach numbers achieved in a DIVE and the only two aircraft which could realistically hit their Critical mach numbers were the P47 and the Tempest as they were the ONLY 2 aircraft which could partially maneuver at such speeds without ripping their wings or empenage off and why P47's were routinely shooting down BF109's/190's at M0.78 and above in dives and German pilots were quickly told to NOT dive away from P47's. Spitfire could not maneuver at critical mach, its empenage went inverted and the test pilots got damned lucky. EB also then tried to insinuate that the Spit could dive to M0.92... Uh... no it could not come even close. Said special test aircraft Spit had a completely different gear ratio, engine RPM limiter was removed, and special propeller as previous tests had shown the normal propeller stopped the aircraft cold at M ~0.86 even with RPM limiter removed a mere M0.03 higher than its critical Mach number of 0.83 where the test pilot barely survived(several others had already died in ground augured Spits, Eric Winkle Brown oh so bravely just ***FORGOT*** to mention this little basic fact) . Indeed the Spit Critical Mach number was higher but not due to an airfoil choice, but rather a wing thickness choice all by accident though it did hamper Spits range(win some lose some). Good accident to have so one does not have to speak German! It was indeed barely higher than the M0.82 critical mach of the P47. EB's stated Mach critical for P47 is just flat out wrong as the manuals even state it being higher.
EB was mixing up the NUMEROUS problems P38 had with critical mach being reached and the P47 which ... did not. Maybe he was remembering the Typhoon problems in such area? Or, more likely, he is just spinning a tale to make his favorite aircraft look spiffy, not that its image needs much buffing as the Spits accolades are numerous.
Eric Brown said (elsewhere) his favourite aircraft was the Mosquito. I believe he flew so many aircraft that he mixed up which was what with Mach numbers.
By the way he was slated to fly the Miles M.52 supersonic jet. He was extremely annoyed when the ministry cancelled it. It had a cockpit escape pod, very thin wing and all flying tail plane.
@@davidelliott5843 EB's favourite aircraft was the DH 103 Hornet.
Ahh the comments section have again been flooded by the same EB critic, nice to criticise a war veteran whose no longer here to defend themselves
22:00 the Pilot's name Winkle didn't add, for youtube posterity is S/L Antony 'Tony' Martindale. Balls of Tungsten Carbide apparently...
He did say it in the original but it was garbled by the recording
And that is one tough substance!
I’d opt for Boron Nitride… (it’s what you use to drill holes in diamonds)…
Winkle Brown I can listen to him all day he speaks without any drama just facts and is able to make the ordinary guy understand and find compelling. How much did he and the People around him add to the War effort? What a figure in the Aircraft industry may he never be forgotton, a word used to often but surely can be used here A legend. thanks for bringing it to us.
I could listen to Winkle's talk all day
This is a link to a short video of one of many American pilots who flew spitfires over Germany. 51 missions apparently and in it he explains some of the high altitude problems the P38 had which was the reason he switched to spitfires. I'm linking it because its a really nice story and though few folk will have heard of him, he is none the less a hero as is Captain Brown who I could listen to all day.
th-cam.com/video/ie3SrjLlcUY/w-d-xo.html
I watched that video, an amazing story
Thanks for the link 😊
A fabulous video, a great story, the look on his face.
If you want to hear what Americans had to say, read what you can by people like Don Blakeskee, who flew Spitfires, P-47s and Mustangs.
Just watched it, a fascinating story. Thanks for that:-)
First Class....thank you...always love to hear this man tell it how it was and is...
Another excellent video, good Ol Winkle Brown. they don't make 'em like that anymore.
Quite possibly the most amazing pilot career ever- go read his his autobiography, it starts with his flight with Baron Von Richthofen, and then things get interesting. A humble man of with an extraordinary life in the air. From an age when the impossible was done at once and miracles just took a little longer.
Impressive to fly with Ricthofen given he was dead, but do go on....
You meant Ernst Udet, not Richthofen :)
@@iatsd they dug him up especially for him
@@paulnutter1713 the gazpacho eventually came for udet. He pinned a 5 of spades to the wall, shot each spade in turn with his pistol, and himself with the last.
P.S., in school holidays when other kids worked in stores, Eric was a wall-of-death motorcyclist.
@@iatsd 😂
Udet..😁 VR was killed in WW1
Incredible
He's always got something interesting to say.
Thanks Jamie, this was an amazing video. Always heard the Spit had the highest Mach number....didn't know bits and pieces needed removed along with some minor modifications of the wings were needed to reach it. 😅 Now I want to find out what the 56th FG did to make the P-47 work for them as the top scoring US ace of the war along with a bunch of the top aces used them. Wonder if they changed the tactics or modifications to the airframe like the modifications to the P-38 helped increase the Mach number or stopped it pushing thru it and making a smoking hole. And last but not least thanks for showing the ENTIRE film of the most seen attack on a B-17 ever. If nothing else will be nice to debunk those who insist its a 109 or 190 attacking.
Later ( D model ) P-47's got fitted with a dive recovery system that popped small flaps into the airstream, very similar to the P-38 - the final P-47's benefitted from a redesigned wing with a different aspect ratio and squared off tips.
Eric was talking specifically about high-altitude combat here, escorting the Flying Forts and Liberators. In that cold, thin air terrain, Mach numbers counted for much more than down and dirty among the trees in tactical combat. That's where the likes of the Thunderbolt earned their reputations.
Ah, good ol' embellishments during story time!
EB didn't bother to mention the tactical mach number EB talks about is completely and utterly useless in reality as ZERO, well zero piston engine aircraft anyways, me262, me163 might be a different story, aircraft at the time had enough power to come even close to reaching their tactical mach numbers, so the ONLY Mach number which matter, were the critical mach numbers achieved in a DIVE. Yes, in a DIVE. The only two aircraft which could realistically hit their Critical mach numbers were the P47 and the Tempest as they were the ONLY 2 aircraft which could partially maneuver at such speeds without ripping their wings or empenage off and why P47's were routinely shooting down BF109's/190's at M0.78 and above in dives and German pilots were quickly told to NOT dive away from P47's. Spitfire could not maneuver at critical mach(like EB's story time pretends to portray), its empenage went inverted and the test pilots got damned lucky. EB also then tried to insinuate that the Spit could dive to M0.92... Uh... no it could not come even close. Said special test aircraft Spit had ***a completely different gear ratio, engine RPM limiter was removed, and special propeller*** as previous tests had shown the normal propeller stopped the aircraft cold at M ~0.86 even with RPM limiter removed a mere M0.03 higher than its critical Mach number of 0.83 where the test pilot barely survived(several others had already died in ground augured Spits, Eric Winkle Brown oh so ***bravely*** just ***FORGOT*** to mention this little basic fact) . Indeed the Spit Critical Mach number was higher but not due to an airfoil choice, but rather a wing thickness choice all by accident though it did hamper Spits range(win some lose some). Good accident to have so one does not have to speak German! It was indeed barely higher than the M0.82 critical mach of the P47. EB's stated Mach critical for P47 is just flat out wrong as the manuals even state it being higher.
EB was mixing up the NUMEROUS problems P38 had with critical mach being reached and the P47 which ... did not. Maybe he was remembering the Typhoon problems in such area? Or, more likely, he is just spinning a tale to make his favorite aircraft look spiffy, not that its image needs much buffing as the Spits accolades are numerous.
@@w8stral Brown test flew all the aircraft you mention. His favorite piston-engined aircraft was the Hornet
@@1maico1 Ya don't say... We all know that. Ok, most do not know he Loved the Hornet and in fact most do not even know what the DeHaviland Hornet was.
Really good scientific & practical explanation of the problems facing airpower in the 1940s.
It is interesting that a Hawker Hunter is shown in some of the illustrations!
The 'Mach' explanation component was made in the early 50s. I couldn't find anything earlier.
@@ArmouredCarriersthanks for finding it I hadn’t seen it before and enjoyed it. As the other comment said surprising they used a Hunter
Excellent vid. Well explained.
Eric Brown's autobiography, "Wings On My Sleeve", is absolutely fascinating. His life - studying in pre-war Nazi Germany, meeting all the best pilots & engineers on both sides of WW2, plus flying way more types of aircraft than anyone ever - is almost unbelievable, but true.
Best explanation yet on Mach number for me anyway . I have seen the shockwave ONCE when the light is just right on a Gulfstream II where it showed up a bit in front of the engine intake above the wing for reference. It was at at about M78 at that time .at 40,000' or 43,000 cannot remember back in the 80's
Always like to hear what "Winkle" Brown has to say.
This takes quite a long time to get to the point. In a good lesson plan you say what you're going to say, you say it, then you say what you've said. Great patience is required here.
Well, I've learned more in this one video than I have in probably the last three months
(And I've passed my aeronautics exam for PPL !)
What an amazing man Captain Brown was.we were so lucky to have him at such a time
Wonderful insight from Mr. Brown about why the Lightnings were better in Asia. Great interview and video, thanks!
Here's a link to an American spitfire pilot who flew over Germany and in the video he talks about the altitude problem of the P38. You may find it of some interest and its a great story.
th-cam.com/video/ie3SrjLlcUY/w-d-xo.html
I have talked to a man who flew both the Mustang and the Lightning in WWII. When I asked him which one was his favorite. He told me. The Lightning got him home three times and the Mustang didn’t. That’s all he would say about that.
Without knowing the context - what height was he when he was in combat, and *why* did the Mustang fail to get him home, that is meaningless, and doesn't tell us anything about the two aircraft.
@@jackx4311 The second engine has just enough power to get you to the crash scene.
Absolutely love " winklle" he was pops CO at Lossiemouth? Was not only a brilliant commander , but according to pops and many others, a wonderful man , could command but also be a reasonabke man, his personality was simply , im me ive seen , done,and printed the T shirt so ket me help you?
every word, absolute gold
Great explanation, at last, explaining why the P-47 was withdrawn as an escort fighter in Europe. Completely debunks the claim in Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles series about the P-47 that it was a bomber mafia conspiracy against the P-47.
Some of Greges claims for the P 47 you have to take with a large pinch of salt.
@@michaelgray7847 Some of Gregs claims about many things come with their own salt mine.
@@michaelgray7847 You absolutely do! I've had the argument with him.
This video is ALSO one mans opinion. And it contains several errors in the theory of aerodynamics and also in their explanation and examples. This is a pilot informing pilots, not an aeronautical engineering course.
There is no case of the P-47 angering into the ground due to compressibility. It had no issues diving to, or exceeding 500mph.
The P-47 training video strongly cautions against split-S type maneuvers and shows that below about 20,000' they can be fatal. Not due to compressibility, but due to how rapidly the aircraft gains speed in a dive and how much energy it retains and cannot be gotten rid of. At 550mph, a 6-G pull up (about the limit of sustained G for a human seated vertically), results in 3,370 foot radius. That is 0.65 MILES of altitude required to not clip treetops, or black out. The P-47 could split-S at 20,000' and 400mph level speed and exceed 550mph before even reaching the vertical portion of its dive. Easily blowing they this amount of altitude in 24.8 seconds at 550mph. This has nothing to do with mach limits. It is entirely physics based. Because it was so powerful, fast, and dense. Pilots generally loved the P-47, and ALL unanimously praised its dive performance. And often cite that advantage for reeling in a german foe or for evading them easily. Many, many kills are credited for forcing the enemy to crash as the 109 would fail to pull up where the P-47 could, after luring them into a dive. Several famous aces have this exact story in P-47s as well at Spitfires and even mustangs.
@@TheJustinJ😂
This was an extraordinary accont of events. I'd never heard of this issue with the Thunderbolt and Lightnings. poor buggers were forced to operate in a portion of the flight envelope they were not trained for and became lawn darts! Not mentioned here was the phenonomen of control reversal as supersonic shockwave progressed over the control surfaces. Winkle was a brilliant aviator. much respect from this old pilot to him.
Another flaw in the P38 that I've read about was demanding engine controls that wasted precious time when transitioning from cruise to combat.
And the innate lack of manouevrability of the outboard mass of two engines.
Galland said that in his opinion all twin engine fighters were basically a mistake.
Another thing the European pilots hated about the P38 was that the cockpit was freezing cold. This sapped the crew of energy and alertness
You guys mention two things that were never solved on the P-38: complicated engine management (watch the P-38 training video on Zeno's Warbirds. The procedures are mind boggling!), and keeping the pilot warm.
Both of which are rudimentary to solve. Having liquid cooled engines, all one had to do was route a coolant hose to a cockpit mounted heat exchanger. It would have cost $100 and been 100% effective.
The engine controls weren't that bad. Pilot drills in training could solve that.
Mixture > Rich
RPM > Max
Throttle > Wide open. Just like any other aircraft. Position the levers so all forward = Go.
@@TheJustinJ Robin Olds disagreed, stating that it was not an easy aircraft to fly and systems/ergonomics were poorly designed.
The USAAF was able to fix the control lock issue/tail separation with the early P-38 and P-47 fighters and the lateral control issue with the early P-51D. The latter two fighters went on to do sterling service as both escort fighters and fighter bombers.
That wouldn't have solved the tactical Mach number problem though.
@@thethirdman225 From what I've read both the P38 and P47 had the range to escort bombers all the way to Germany and back and this was before the P51 came into service. Couldn't this control reversal problem have been solved by the bombers flying at a lower altitude and maybe the escort fighters diving onto attacking fighters at a slower and shallower angle, perhaps using dive brakes if they had them? This wouldn't solve the tactical Mach number either but it might just have given the bombers a better chance if the fighters could stay around longer.
@@ianrkav
*_"From what I've read both the P38 and P47 had the range to escort bombers all the way to Germany and back and this was before the P51 came into service."_*
Well, it might sound 'D'uh, good one, Captain Obvious', but Germany is a pretty big place. Even then, there are a lot of things that need to be factored in. First of all, because the fighters cruised so much faster than the bombers and in order to get maximum fuel economy out of them, they had to operate in a sort of 'leapfrog' system of scheduling. An escort force would fly with them across the Channel and perhaps a short distance into Germany - even RAF Spitfires did this - before another escort group would pick them up. They would then escort them either to the target or to the next rendezvous point. Finally, the process would be reversed for the trip home.
This would require a huge amount of planning. First of all, the relative economical cruise performance (speed/altitude) of the fighters v bombers had to be considered. Too slow and they'd chew up too much fuel. Leave too late and they might not make up the distance before the Luftwaffe started attacking. Next, the relative cruise performance of each fighter type was considered. Then there was the matter of weather and this played a much bigger role than almost everyone realises. Finally, where were the Luftwaffe fighter bases concentrated? Would they be ready and hiding behind the next cloud or would they be on the ground, refuelling? These are the questions mission planners sweated over.
These parameters were different for all types, so a direct comparison is not always possible. For the longest range missions, there seems to be little doubt that the P-51 was the best choice and this overrides an awful lot of other detail. It just had the best range/performance of all. That is reflected in the comments of people like Don Blakeslee and 'Hub' Zemke. It was also easily good enough to take on the Luftwaffe in pretty much any other escort mission too and that is reflected in the comments of Luftwaffe pilots who fought against it.
When the Mustang arrived, the others were simply gradually replaced. The P-38 - which was not a good escort fighter in Europe - was used effectively in the PR role. The P-47 gained a second life as a fighter bomber, doing ground attack work, in concert with the British Typhoon.
*_"Couldn't this control reversal problem have been solved by the bombers flying at a lower altitude and maybe the escort fighters diving onto attacking fighters at a slower and shallower angle, perhaps using dive brakes if they had them?'_*
Mmmm... well, it might but it doesn't make enough tactical sense to me. Never give away altitude. If we're going to stick to the famous 'Dicta Boelcke', it's worth remembering _'1. Try to secure advantages before attacking. If possible, keep the sun behind you.'_ They may not always have been able to make use of the sun but they wouldn't be sacrificing altitude.
*_"This wouldn't solve the tactical Mach number either but it might just have given the bombers a better chance if the fighters could stay around longer."_*
Well again, that depends on the range performance of the fighters. Each aircraft has its most efficient altitude.
@@ianrkav In the end that's kinda what happened when Doolittle "let them loose" and gave them "free reign".
@@ianrkav it would have shortened the range of the bombers by doing so since their True Air Speed and Ground Speed would have been slower flying at the same Indicated Air Speed at lower altitude. It also would have significantly eased the task of Luftwaffe fighters climbing to intercept, meaning even more exposure to fighter attack.
Mach speed was only one factor in a combat aircraft. The main advantage of the P-38 was 4 .50 cals and a 20mm cannon sticking out of the nose which made it very accurate and a very heavy hitter.
The P-38 was also very difficult to fly. It took a new pilot 400 hours on type before he was mission ready. Even then, he had to manage a huge number of systems just to keep it flying. It was a very management-intensive aircraft to fly.
Crit Mach was an issue since LW pilots knew they could simply dive away from a swarm of P-38s on escort duty and live to fight another day. The Allison engines and turbo installations were also a constant source of problems for the P-38. Also, the P-38 was a huge aircraft easily seen from a distance, giving the LW pilot opportunity to position himself in a tactical advantage.
Thank you again.
I like the format, and Brown's discussion of critical Mach number is relevant, but dismissing the P-38 and P-47 as "failures" seems a bit simplistic. Yes, the Spitfire could have done a better job of diving after fighters attacking B-17 formations- but it wouldn't have been there in the first place because it didn't have the range, and it didn't have the range because it wasn't designed to have it.
It should have been, Spitfires were prototyped with drop tanks but the experiments weren't developed further so Spitfire escort fighters were never produced.
@@jimdavis8391 The very feature that allowed the Spitfire to achieve a high critical Mach, thin wings, limited its on-board fuel capacity. It is true that the Spitfire could carry external fuel tanks, but it reduced performance and it generally did not fight with them. The result is that internal fuel capacity is what limited combat range since it was used for combat + return flight + reserve.
@@jimdavis8391I agree the US did modify a Spitfire airframe MK210 “ Tolly Hello” so with drop tanks it could get to Berlin but the RAF didn’t think it was operationally sound so didn’t pursue it. Furthermore of course the PR Spits roamed all over Europe. I think it was a philosophical thing with the RAF just not believing in escort fighters enough and the Allies being lucky the P 51 was up to the job.
Critical mach number didn't figure into every combat. The only thing that kept the P-47 from being the war winner was its huge appetite for gas, in spite of what another channel will tell you with an onslaught of charts and graphs. I think its high altitude performance, heavy armament, and ruggedness made up for most other deficiencies. In the ETO, though, I believe the Lightning was a definate failure as an escort fighter.
The USAAF approached the British regarding procurement of Spitfires, presumably with drop tanks, for use as escort fighters. The idea was scuttled by Leigh- Mallory who refused to consider the possibility.
Amazing stories from one of the greatest test pilots ever to have lived.
The P-47s did considerable damage to the Luftwaffe for two important reasons: wise tactics that took advantage of the P-47s strengths, and that the P-47s were doing the chasing as Luftwaffe pilots were charged with evading fighters and going after the bombers.
Thunderbolts and lightenings... (very very frightening things) 🛩️
Gallileo!
Pretty harsh, esp on the P47. To label the Bolt as "not a success" or "useless" is plainly laughable if you know your history - you're gonna judge an aircraft simply on Mcrit ?? 🤣
Context is really important, P47 lads faced the luftwaffe at its absolute pinnacle, vs its best pilots in 1943 and broke its back with an arguably inferior machine (P47C) and still got a 4.6:1 kill ratio.
Since he mentions 'tactical' - Zemke's tactics were to be aggressive, where bomber crews thought the escorts were chasing glory was misjudged - they were making sure those fighters and their pilots never got the chance to return to the skies or pass on their experience to new pilots. 56th record is a testament to itself, highest scoring Ace was Gabreski, a P47 driver. Top 10 Aces, all but 3 were P47s.
Squadron Leader Anthony F Martindale, Mach 0.92 in 1944.
He's the very big pilot Brown was talking about who could manage a 100 lb stick back pressure..
On 5th February, 1952, Fl. ltn. Ted Powles set an altitude record for Spitfires of 51,550 ft over Hong Kong in his Mk. PR19, and a speed record of Mach 0,94, 1110 km/h, in a dive. Not bad for an aircraft constructed in the mid thirties. R. J. Mitchell knew what he was doing indeed.
@@VidarLund-k5q calibration? ias is vague.
Spitfire XIV dive speed limit at 20,000' is 470 mph IAS, @ 25,000' it's 430 mph IAS (608 mph TAS). Granted, initial dive acceleration was slightly less than the stone Jug, but at least it could chase down the fastest LW fighters and then climb like a rocket back up.
The Spit Mk.21 had a dive limit of 525 mph.
His claims about critical Mach on the P47 do not stand up to the evidence accumulated by NACA, US pilots, and German pilots who admitted the P47 could outdive everything they had.
His argument is they did extremely well under normal operational parameters. This did not include defending high-level bombers when diving from extreme altitude heights where there air is colder and thinner, and therefore the Mach effect kicks in at a much lower speed.
And, of course, aircraft were modified after these findings so later marks had less of a problem.
They could dive ok, pulling up was the problem 😂
Initial dive acceleration was good with the P-47, but in a sustained dive at high altitude, it was only about .71 mach. Context matters.
When this guy talks airplanes, i listen.
You should read his books.
The whole team at farnborough during the war yrs ww2, we’re pushing the envelope of what was possible as far as flight goes to the max,
Just as well really
Hats off to all the Allied nations the more you find out the more impressed you get with them all,
_'Well, we had P-47s that couldn’t go as far. P-51s could go much, much farther. I_
_requested one time for P-51s. And I was sent to the United States, and during my_
_absence, a man who became a general, a West Pointer, took my organization over and_
_was influenced to take these P-47s back. Therefore, when I came back to the unit, it was_
_determined in the program they’d keep them. The airplane that was really the combat_
_airplane was the P-51. I know it is. I later transferred-I don’t know whether you knew_
_this to another organization I was going to pick up organizations that were the lowest guys_
_on the tote board, bring their morale up-and it worked well-to an organization that was_
_getting P-51s. And they got them. They came right along the line. Good little_
_organization. Sure, you’ve got to have-you got to have a Ferrari if you want to win the_
_Grand Prix, don’t you?'_
- Colonel Hubert 'Hub' Zemke
6:48 - I've heard the term "critical Mach number" many times, but this is the first time I've heard it explained.
I Have Nothing But Respect & Admiration For Captain Brown As One Of The Greatest Military Aviators Of The 20th Century. However, The 56th Fighter Group's Record Speaks For Itself & The P-47 Might Not Have The Best Mach Number But On June 26, 1943, No Other Plane Would've Brought Lt. Robert S. Johnson Home. Thank You.
I think he said as much himself. This is all in the context of why the sound barrier became such a critical issue post-war. It shows it was an issue - under some circumstances - for all aircraft.
I hear that those planes can be very, very frightening!
They may even have a devil in store for you!
Id recommend 'Winkle' by Paul Beaver.. brilliant biography of Capt Broon
Love the winkle!!💥💪👊
The P-47 shot down more German aircraft than any other US aircraft, so due respect to Eric Brown, but the P-47 was neither useless nor was it ever “withdrawn and relegated to ground attack.” Ever. The 56th Fighter Group (US 8th Air Force) in 1944 refused to give up its Thunderbolts when ordered to transition to the P-51, and continued to do devastating work against the Axis as a fighter and a fighter bomber until the end of the war. It’s P-47M could and did escort bombers all the way to Berlin (yes, the story’s of the P-47’s really short range as an escort are not factual).
The longer range P-51 was far cheaper to build, was a phenomenal aircraft, but did not show up in any meaningful numbers in Europe until the spring of 1944, which was the same time period the P-47 was showing its greatest successes against the Germans.
The P-47 in the 9th Air Force was primarily used as a fighter bomber, but the 9th Air Force was created by Eisenhower for that express purpose because the 8th Air Force refused to support Eisenhower in the ground support role in the way Eisenhower requested.
The P-38 was never withdrawn and only used for reconnaissance duties. It was phased out as a primary fighter escort over Germany because the P-47 and P-51 were cheaper to build, could out perform it at high altitude and were easier to train pilots on those single engine platforms. But it continued in most parts of the ETO as a front line fighter and ground attack aircraft until the end of the war.
Rolls-Royce never redesigned the Merlin for American use. Rolls-Royce sent a copy of the Merlin to Packard, along with several pallets of documentation Packard found to cumbersome, reduced the engineering schematics to less than 1/20th the volume, streamlined the engineering processes, and built their own version.
The Merlin was a magnificent engine, and it did amazing service, but the Packard-Merlin was not redesigned by the British for American use.
You can spin the Packard nonsense as much as you like but the Americans were obliged to COPY the Merlin. They certainly didn't 'build their own Merlin'. Making a few mods doesn't mean making a new engine. Who gives a shit about 'reducing the schematics' and streamlining the engineering process. Both R-R and Packard had very similar experience with building engines (although not aero engines) so it's likely they brought their own individual practices into play. So what?
You'll be trotting out those tired old tropes about 'tighter tolerances' and 'better materials' soon. Actually, R-R's hand fitting methods produce FAR tighter tolerances than American mass production methods. But, hand fitting stores up trouble for later particularly with parts interchangeability., so both production methods have their pros and cons. Let's not forget R-R outproduced Packard by more than 2:1 for Merlins - and that R-R engines were as reliable as Packards. In combat terms, neither engine showed any superiority over the the other.
I get it. Without the British Merlin, the Mustang would have remained a useless fighter. American booster,s braggers and boasters have to expend enormous energy trying to prove that the actual advnce came from American Packard. It's pathetic really. Yanks are so insecure, so needle-dicked...
And, what d'ya know? In 1940, the RAF got a handful of Boeing B-17A bombers - little more than prototypes - which were so poor and so full of defects that the Brits had to make EXTENSIVE MODIFICATIONS just to make them even airworthy. So, there you are! The Brits made their own Flying Fortresses! Nothing to do with the Yanks, at all.
Actually, the less said about this 'gift' of the B-17As the better. They were so poor that they managed less than 50 RAF heavy bomber missions and of those, only 20 weren't aborted before completion. Bomber Command couldn't unload these jalopies quick enough on Coastal Command (where, ultimately, they proved quite useful - just not as heavy bombers).
@@jacktattis Ansolutely. If they're not on here rewriting history, they're crawling all over Wikipedia doing it.
Licensing production does not work that way, sorry to disappoint you. Packard made some very minor changes in order to facilitate production, but precisely none of those changes affected the engines performance or dimensions. Under the conditions of the license the builder of the licensed equipment is literally forbidden to make major changes to the item being manufactured. The Merlin was not given to Packard to build, it was LICENSED to them to build. It was not 'their own version' as you claimed, but with minor modifications to take into account Packard's manufacturing process was a like for like COPY of the Merlin. That is how licensing works.....
Too bad that the Spitfire didn't have longer legs. There always seems to be trade-offs.
By 1944, late production Spit IX's had up to 196 imp gallons internal capacity (235 US gal). Enough to reach germany and back to Tangmere. Once based on the continent, they had plenty of range for their missions.
To me, the Spitfire and the Corsair are the coolest looking fighters of WW2
I don't think you're alone!
I've had a thing for the Mosquito (bomber version) for quite a while.
Performance is what counts for the fighter pilot. They called the Corsair many unpleasant names, but it was effective in its role.
could listen to this man's stories all day long
Interesting! This is the first I've heard about tactical Mach numbers or compressibility being a serious issue for American fighters in Europe.
Yes, diving attacks and diving escapes were very important to WWII fighters. Being able to dive away from an attacking fighter or group of fighters was a tremendous advantage.
At least one Lockheed test pilot was killed in a P-38 due to compressibility.
@@thethirdman225 Tragically true. Pushing boundaries often demands human sacrifice. My understanding was that compressibility was first encountered in testing, and that combat pilots were warned to avoid power dives that could bring it about.
@@petesheppard1709 Its where the loss of control starts. So yeah. Test pilots find it, hopefully find ways out of it and pass everything on to service pilots.
@@thethirdman225 They tried several things, including moving the tail up out of the wake of the wing, but the basic design of the plane lowered its useful diving speed. This was well before the idea of the "area rule" that becomes critical at transonic speeds. The relatively fat, stubby gondola, engine nacelles and propellers accelerated airflow over the center wing section causing earlier formation of shock waves. That part of the wing was already thick for a fighter (16% thickness) which would have been an issue by itself.
Great video.
I've heard a lot of commentators talk about which aircraft was superior in ww2 but none have given provided real technical evidence to back up their views.
Now I understand that the talk about how great the Spitfire was has true technical merit, from a guy that truely knew his stuff.
Cheers
He's demonstrating how different aircraft perform differently in different aerial "terrain". High altitude cold and thin air did different things to aerodynamics than low-altitude warmer, thicker air.
So the Thunderbolt and Lightning, which were very good lower down, were less so higher up. A
If you aren’t already familiar you should check “Greg’s Airplanes and automobiles”
@@jacktattis You at it again? Need a hug?
Ah, good ol' embellishments during story time! Sorry to burst your bubble, but EB is blatantly lying via omission at best.
EB didn't bother to mention the tactical mach number EB talks about is completely and utterly useless in reality as ZERO, well zero piston engine aircraft anyways, me262 might be a different story, aircraft at the time had enough power to come even close to reaching their tactical mach numbers, so the ONLY Mach number which matter were the critical mach numbers achieved in a DIVE and the only two aircraft which could realistically hit their Critical mach numbers were the P47 and the Tempest as they were the ONLY 2 aircraft with a rigid enough wing/fuselage/empenage structure which could partially maneuver at such speeds without ripping their wings or empenage off and why P47's were routinely shooting down BF109's/190's at M0.78 and above in dives and German pilots were quickly told to NOT dive away from P47's. Spitfire could not maneuver at critical mach, its empenage went inverted and the test pilots got damned lucky. EB also then tried to insinuate that the Spit could dive to M0.92... Uh... no it could not come even close. ***Said special test aircraft Spit had a completely Different Gear ratio, engine RPM limiter was REmoved, and special higher pitch propeller*** as previous tests had shown the normal propeller stopped the aircraft cold at M ~0.86 even with RPM limiter removed a mere M0.03 higher than its critical Mach number of 0.83 where the test pilot barely survived(several others had already died in ground augured Spits, Eric Winkle Brown oh so ***"bravely"*** just ***FORGOT*** to mention this little basic fact) . Indeed the Spit Critical Mach number was higher but not due to an airfoil choice, but rather a wing thickness choice all by accident though it did hamper Spits range(win some lose some). Good accident to have so one does not have to speak German! Spits Critical Mach was indeed barely higher than the M0.82 critical mach of the P47. EB's stated Mach critical for P47 is just flat out wrong as the manuals even state it being higher.
EB was mixing up the NUMEROUS problems P38 had with critical mach being reached and the P47 which ... did not. A late model P47 had dive brakes so it could better use its superior dive speed to track opposing aircraft and for weaker pilots. Maybe he was remembering the Typhoon problems in such area? Or, more likely, he is just spinning a tale to make his favorite aircraft look spiffy, not that its image needs much buffing as the Spits accolades are numerous.
@@w8stral I agree completely.. he tended to embellish every story he ever told… he’s kinda the British version of Pappy Boyington , although probably not nearly as much of a drunken bully as Boyington.
That certainly puts ammo into defending the spitfire, in the what was the best fighter debate. I spoke to a WW2 Cdn ace and he flew both mustangs and Spitfires in combat and he loved both planes BUT said if he had a choice, he would pick the spitfire. This shows one of the reasons why.
It must - must - always depend on the mission profile.
There is no one solution.
Spitfires were great interceptors (both low and high altitude, but dependent on engine optimisation)
But they were poor escort fighters. And middling at best strike fighters. Not to mention seriously risky as a carrier fighter.
@@ArmouredCarriers Yeah, i agree. For it's stengths, it had it's weaknesses too. Have to remember the improvements of the spitfire as the war went along. It certainly was a fine ankled race horse compared to American fighters.
@@jacktattis I am certainly a fan of the spitfire and that was my point. The spitfire lasted the war as a top ranked fighter, start to finish. Which only a few fighters can claim, such as the ME 109, P40 family, wildcat/marlets for example. Even then the P40 and wildcats were never really as good as the ME109 and spits. Have to give the Hurricane, Zero, P39 family some credit for performance and how long the design lasted. I can't speak for Italian and Russia fighters.
@@jacktattis Interestingly late mark Spitfires equipped with drop tanks had much increased range, but they weren't used for long range day bomber escort. Perhaps because the USAAC didn't want credit coming to the RAF, or because the RAF didn't want to work with the USAAC.
@@Peorhum - depends. but bad analogy - the Mustang was aways at Least 20mph faster with same engine and boost The Mustang B/D with 15% aileron compared to 10% all previous models, was as good in roll as a light P47 and better than Spit, and nearly as good as FW 190, accelerated better and zoomed better from a dive. Given the same loadout fraction (ie max internal GW) the Spit would always climb better and turn better - but that is why the Lightweight P-51H was developed to replace the D
Brown mentioned the "laminar flow wing" used on the P51, but as it turned out, its biggest advantage, higher critical mach speed was completely accidental. At the time (late 30's, early 40's), small scale wind tunnel tests with carefully prepared wing sections showed dramatic drag reduction with these airfoils from large runs of laminar air flow. What was not realized at first was that the profile and surface finish required to routinely achieve laminar flow was beyond what could be practically achieved in production aircraft. The hoped-for drag reductions and speed increased were not achieved on production aircraft. FWIW, the "Davis Wing" of the B24 also showed remarkably low drag (from laminar flow) in wind tunnel models but not in production aircraft.
The profiles of these "laminar flow" wings, however just happened to accelerate the airflow more slowly along its cord than previous designs. Whereas the thickest part of most wings of the time was about 25% from the front, it was 50 -60% back on the laminar flow designs. The result is that the air on top of the wing did not have to speed up as much and would stay subsonic longer. It is easy to see the differences in profiles in a side-by-side comparison.
The interesting properties of the Spitfire wing at critical mach were just dumb luck, as the designers had no knowledge of critical mach at the time.
@@jacktattis The Spitfire used the older NACA 22xx series airfoils but with a thinner T/C (thickness/cord) ratio of 13%. This helped increase critical Mach but dramatically reduced fuel capacity, which kept it in the intercepter role (and prevented the use of wider landing gear). It was a very good interceptor . The P51 was physically larger, stronger and heavier to hold enough internal fuel for long range missions and more ordnance.
Although the Spitfire could use external fuel tanks, it is the amount of internal fuel that limits fighting radius. This is because the fighter will will drop its external fuel tanks before entering combat and returning home.
The last iteration of the Spitfire, the Griffon-engined Spiteful, had tapered laminar flow wings to farther increase critical mach.
@@jacktattis So you are implying that it was common practice for Allied fighters to enter battle with belly tanks?
@@jacktattis - if you kew what you were talking about you would be more entertaining. The P-51 did Not have a Laminar Flow wing. NAA accurately described the NAA/NACA 45-100 as a High Speed/Low Drag airfoil. The Mustang was tested up to 0.85 Mach compared to the Spit dive of 0.9 but nothing dropped off the P-51D and the difference was in the wing thisckness - not the respectve airfoils - the Spit had a 13% wing compared to the 16.5% P-51 wing.
@@FlatOutMatt - I have a lot of respect fro Brown - I was able to engage in a six or seven letter exchange with him back in 70s and again after the published his Best Fighters book. At that time he surpisingly did not know that the P-51 had a significant advantage in Mcrit over the FW 190 and Bf 109. IIRC he had P-51 behind Spit, FW190 and F6F. He also did not know that the total victory credits of the Mustang (all models) exceeded total Spitfire victory credits. At any rate it was a good experience (for me) and perhaps for him - as an aero engineer and pilot, very knowledegable about ETO History and aircraft - I was not the normal audience and debater he usually dealt with. We lost a great one when he passed a couple of years ago.
All you say is correct with a few caveats. 'They' did know when Spit was designed that the thinner wing in same NACA series had less profile drag. Hard to be specific about 1934 but NACA (Prandll & TieTietjens published papers about wing section drag in compressible flow in 1934. Von Karman and Milliken were leading lights on compressibility and boundary layer behavior in 1930's fromCal Tech.
I can't remember if Spit wing was NACA 2213 or 2413 (or?). Historically, Schmued called for NACA 2616 for the P-509 proposed to BPC, then NAA/NACA 45-100 (with NACA 23016 as back up). All were High Speed/Low Drag category. The 45-100 had Max T/C at 37.5%. The later XP-51F/G/J and P-51H had the NACA 66 series wih Max T/C at 50% (IIRC). The second reason for less Mach Tuck/CM change was that the movement of the Center of Pressure movement was less dramatic at Mcr.
Fantastic explanations by an incredible man. While I would not seek to challenge his views or knowledge for a moment, I recall a discussion in Len Deighton's fictional "Goodbye Mickey Mouse," around the relative cost of a P47 to a P51. The suggestion was that some fighter groups were re-equipped with P51's as replacements for their P47's because the P51 was substantially cheaper to produce, albeit that with the Merlin engine it was an excellent aircraft. I've always felt that Deighton's research was pretty good so would be interested to know if anyone was aware of the relative cost issues from another source. One other point made by Brown is that in his view some P47 and P38 pilots were killed in irrecoverable dives. IMVHO, many line pilots would have inevitably and tragically been less capable in such a situation than a test pilot, particularly if focused on taking the heat from the B17's, or evading the attentions of a FW190...
Naturally, things are almost always more complicated than one perspective can offer. He was talking from his test pilot experience. So that contributor to the overall outcome was highest on his mind. I'm sure an interview with an accounting office political apparatchik will focus on the cost component!
Oooh! Joy!!
Fascinating, Mr. Armoured Carriers (Are you Jamie?). I had never known or even imagined problems in diving with different wing-shapes. And, yes, most carrier strikes started around 20,000 feet, where strike groups ran toward their targets, and aircraft would have fought their way down.
Thanks again...a winner!
Captain Eric Melrose "Winkle" Brown, CBE, DSC, AFC, Hon FRAeS[1] (21 January 1920 - 21 February 2016) was a British Royal Navy officer and test pilot who flew 487 types of aircraft, more than anyone else in history.[2][3][4]
Brown holds the world record for the most aircraft carrier deck take-offs and landings performed (2,407 and 2,271 respectively)[2] and achieved several "firsts" in naval aviation, including the first landings on an aircraft carrier of a twin-engined aircraft, an aircraft with a tricycle undercarriage, a jet aircraft, and a rotary-wing aircraft.
Brown flew almost every category of Royal Navy and Royal Air Force aircraft: glider, fighter, bomber, airliner, amphibian, flying boat and helicopter. During the Second World War, he flew many types of captured German, Italian, and Japanese aircraft, including new jet and rocket aircraft. He was a pioneer of jet technology into the postwar era.[5]
Don't mention this to the P-47 fanbois...
I wonder of (Greetings. This is) Greg has seen this video! Thanks for posting.
Nowadays passengers are more or less ( Low Cost etc 😉😑 ) comfortably , seating on an airliner cruising at Mach .78 or Mach. 85 .
Amazing !
The Mach crit explanation is The Best I have ever seen.
Early Jet Airliners were subject to " Jet Upset " ( also the F 101 Voodoo and others ) , and at least the B 707 and DC 8 had Horrible Aileron controls !
Flight Engineers were keen asking us new F/Os about " Servo Tabs " , " Control Tabs " , " Mach Trim " ( Mach Tuck ) ...I had a Slovakian Colleague at Qatar Airways who flew the Tupulev 104 , one of the most dangerous early Airliners !
Curiously He had a Jet Engine Design Engineering Degree from Rolls Royce !
The design philosophy on wings for traveling at high-subsonic speeds has changed over the years. Earlier designs often reduced the overall rate of acceleration of the air over the upper wing to delay the formation of shock waves to a higher aircraft speed. The "laminar flow" designs were useful for that. Things got ugly once the shock wave formed, though. Control surfaces behind a strong shock wave operated in an area of separated flow and had low effectiveness. Merely operating the control surface was sometimes enough to trip a shock wave.
More modern "supercritical" designs are shaped to allow a weak shock wave to form on the upper wing surface and still maintain good performance and control.
Funny old world. When the Russian squadrons gave up their Spitfires and were given Bell Aircobras there was much grumbling. Because the air fighting on the Russian front was under the permanant winter cloud cover of 15,000ft they soon found that the Aircobra was suberb and out matched the Spitfire in all aspects. Above 20,000ft it went from mediocre to jusr awful.....horses for courses.
LOL, sounds like propaganda. Read up on the Wright Field test pilot reports on the P-39. An unstable gun platform, relegated as a training aircraft for the most part in the US, and had 3x the accident rate of the P-40 trg units. The Soviets took what ever they could and life was cheap there, also having many training accidents in the P-39 tumble and spin machine.
@@bobsakamanos4469 The P-39 was used by the Soviet Air Force, and enabled individual Soviet pilots to score the highest number of kills attributed to any U.S. fighter type flown by any air force in any conflict...
Wiki.
@@rexbarron4873 take the Soviet stats with a grain of salt and they were initially desperate to take any aircraft that had big guns and a radio. The P-39 needed good pilots to be useful since it was unstable. Haven't you read the test pilot reports?
@@bobsakamanos4469 Well it seems that the German/Russian stats are made up and I along with Wiki are all bit dodgy with you being the paragon of righteousness. I bet the Russian pilots who flew like maniacs defending their homeland didn't read the test reports either.
@@rexbarron4873 LOL, you're not seriously relying on Wiki to support your assertions?? The Soviets didn't like the Spits simply because the narrow undercarriage wasn't suitable for the roughed out airstrips. It was however far easier to fly than the unstable, tumble and spin P-39 with the dodgy Allison.
Utterly incredible. What a man was Captain Brown!
Interesting and informative. Excellent photography job enabling viewers to better understand what the orator/pilot Brown was describing. Class A research project !!!
As EB says, 'the Brits re-engineered the Mustang'. Yes, the aircraft that North American first foisted on the British was really poor as a proper fighter. It would have gone nowhere - except into the dustbin of history' - without British ingenuity transforming it into a very fine all round fighter. Yet. why do so many Americans insist that the triumph of the Mustang is an American achievement? It is clearly not.
Take that statement with a grain of salt. Several US aircraft were designed from the beginning to use the Merlin engine as an option. The designers were not idiots. Even the P40 had a Merlin version. Packard's September 1940 agreement to build it in the US meant the Merlin was considered a viable option for US-built aircraft before the US even entered the war. The first of the over 55,500 US-produced Merlins ran in mid 1941.
Also it was not strictly speaking true that the Mustang with the Packard Engine was a poor fighter, it was actually very good at low and adequate at medium altitudes. Problem is in the European and Mediterranean air combat was generally at high to medium altitude, and the Packard suffered in that envelope. A fighter for those theatres NEEDED good high altitude performance.
@@alganhar1 The R.A.F also added drop tanks to increase the range and a clear bubble canopy for improved visibility .
Such a revealing commentary from such an observant, knowledgeable and talented test pilot.
So much defense in the comments of the P47. Look at the context. Brown was a test pilot presented with a specific problem, so he analysed that problem. He did not do a ground attack evaluation, carrier suitability evaluation, or even a dog fighting evaluation, or otherwise make sweeping generalisations despite it sounding that way when taken out of context. The guy was hands-on evidence-driven to his core, in every case he's talking about something he has personally analysed or experienced and his comments are accurate in the context of that situation or problem. If a non-engineering audience chooses to misconstrue that - tbh I can't imagine he'd be less interested.
The P-47 was not known to auger in due to compressibility. That was a P-38 problem. The P-47 severely lacked in range and could not provide cover over the target. Drop tanks could have remedied this and later did. But not at that time.
If the Brits would have equipped Spitfires with long range tanks in the wings, aft fuselage, and actual droppable tanks, the Spit would have solved all these problems.
Not qualified regarding carrier suitability??? He was the first pilot to land a jet on an aircraft carrier my friend.
@@TheJustinJ Drop tanks alone don't increase the combat range of a fighter, just ferry distance. The P-47D-25 had been redesigned to have more internal fuel, thus giving it the longer radius of action (with drop tanks).
I respect Eric tremendously, however I am a bit confused by him calling the P47 and P38 useless. Mach limit doesn't determine if a fighter is useless or not. It determines when its time to pull out of a dive. Not all dogfights had people diving at max speeds. The P47 and P38 fly higher and faster than Spitfires and that is far more useful than dive speed. You don't need high mach limit unless you're running away or chasing someone who is running away.
He was specifically talking about a very narrow band of performance - above the high altitude bombers. There the combination of cold and thin air density lowers the speed at which Mach is reached considerably.
At all other altitudes (which probably represent 95 per cent of combat operations), they were excellent.
@ArmouredCarriers Oh, thank you for the clarification. That makes sense now. I should have paid more attention. Thanks for responding
You are welcome. My videos do tend to get rather specific about obscure things! @@Rogueginger69
The LW pilots knew they could attack high altitude bombers, then escape by diving. Their primary objective was bombers. So, yes crit mach was a large factor for high alt escort fighters.
Great historical importance for aviation buffs. Thank you.
Thank you for posting this. It really was a most enjoyable and informative viewing.
Interesting that no one ever mentions the dive limit of the outdated Hurricane -- 390 mph IAS. Sad really.
Amazing thankyou for sharing
One of the most interesting and educational posts I have seen. Excellent thanks!
Brilliant, just wonderful.
Greg should watch this
I'm bad at physics because poor mathematical skills.
But this video with the diagrams, animations and narration explains to anyone the principle of speed of sound and its complications.
In all other documentaries I watched, they never said the P-38 and P-47 were no good because of them becoming uncontrollable when diving down at such altitudes. They just said that the P-38 was too slow and the P-47 didn't have the range to escort the bombers all the way.
"No good" is not really accurate. Many fighters were shot down on the first pass by aircraft they did not see, so they had no chance to dive away. Also, none of these aircraft could maintain altitude during a maneuvering dogfight, so invariably a protracted fight ended up at lower altitudes where tactical Mach was not an issue.
Mach tuck killed many early Learjet. The Avon Sabre I flew had Mcrit .94. We fought at M.83.
The propeller tips will be going beyond Mach 1 well before the aircraft is going that fast. That can cause enough shock vibration to wreck the engine. Regardless of the air frame itself.
Depends on the specific propeller airfoil design and isolation system.
AT-6 Texans run their propeller tips supersonic as a matter of standard operating procedure.
The Thunder screech went supersonic, and had a propeller capable of attaining 80% efficiency while 100% supersonic from spinner to blade tips.
I find it funny that Brown pronounces Mach correctly contrary to 99% of all english speakers, but it's probably due to his scottish heritage, as the "Loch" and such are pronounched the same as the german ch sound
Brown spoke fluent German hence he got to interrogate various Germans, including Hermann Göring, after the war.
I knew the P38 had dive problems, but never the P47.
The Spit had a wide chord at the wing/fuselage intersection. So too the Mustang by virtue of a leading edge speed fairing. This aerodynamically thins the wing increasing the critical Mach. I’m sure this feature was accidental on the Spit and likely so on the Mustang. (I don’t think supersonic aero was understood/developed during their design.)
Inspect airliner platforms noting the trailing edge kink which aerodynamically thins the wing. In addition, the juncture airfoil is transitioned to symmetrical. All to inch up the critical Mach.
So Lightings and Thunderbolts were junk because their mach limit was .68 and .71? I wonder what Robert Johnson or Dick Bong would think about that.
In a dive at high altitudes to defend B-17s. Winkle is very clear about that context. As the support material explains, the speed needed to encounter the sound barrier is slower at high altitude than low altitude.
@@ArmouredCarriers it's a very singular parameter to judge an airplane on and I don't think the evidence bears it out. P38 wasn't a success in escort but I thought that was as much mechanical issues and cockpit heating as compressibility. R.Johnson said repeatedly in his book that the Germans would always try to dive away from him out of habit and then he'd have them. Of course Johnson was exceptional and wtf do i know. I really enjoy your channel btw. Cheers.
@@robmarsh6668 Very true. It is a singular parameter. But it was one that was causing problems for a critical mission. Thus the need to explore the cause of these aircraft losing control and plunging into the ground.
Standout pilots seemed to be much more sensitive to what their aircraft were "telling" them ... and were able to push the limits as they sensed where they were.
Winke didn't call the Lightning and Thunderbolt "junk". I included the high praise he gave both of them in this video. He called them "useless" while referencing their performance in one arena - high altitude, high speed dives in atmospheric conditions that triggered the sound barrier at much lower speeds.
@@ArmouredCarriers One of the Thunderbolt's most praised attributes was it's diving ability ( see Blakeslee). I wonder if the Spitfire had a low mach number if such importance would be placed on it.
This flying hero is patently Scottish - or he would have been dubbed SIR Eric Brown.
Shame.
Very nice enemy pilot!
His favourite was probably the Mosquito but the worst, No doubt it was the Me.163. He refused to fly it.
Many thanks for this!
11g on a Spitfire omg!
17 Stone = 238 pounds ~ 108.2Kg. 6ft 3in ~ 1.91 Meters tall. (about the 20 minute mark)
Sun Ldr Tony Martindale.
This is an excellent teaching aid even now, I learnt a lot.
Thank you, that was highly educational!
22:20 It was a piston engined glider at that point #humor
So it all came down to maximum mach number. I have never heard this before.
Only at very high altitudes and if a true maneuvering dogfight developed. Very often an enemy aircraft was "bounced" and shot down before the pilot could enter a dive. Also, diving away at high speed usually meant the end of a fight.
Curious that the explanatory animations used the silouetes o f british aircraft but the commentary was american. Or is it canadian?
Not certain. The company that sponsored that information film was the British Shell Oil company. I guess it was a matter of who the intended audience was (there is a shorter version, I think it had an English commentator)
@@ArmouredCarriers Thanks for the clarification Jamie. Makes sense.
I'm reminded of the - I think apocryphal - quote from soldiers regarding aircraft identification over Normandy. 'Green and brown, British; silver, American; invisible, German' *lol*