indarwinsshadow: TeddyRooseveltsMustache: Warbirds thread!

Since you mentioned it;

[www.seanmmaloney.com image 640x480]

My country hasn't built anything this nice in 50 years. All we do is buy American military hardware.

Maple leaf? Where you from, Korea?

loonatic112358: I wasn't aware the Pentagon was in the plane building business. I thought they were in the defense and killin business and the planes were something they bought as a tool.

No, no... the Pentagon are the tools...

Chief_ Danz153A: Riothamus:
"I've never understood why the USAF never opened up a pure ground-attack pilot school for people who only wanted to fly A10s, and ordered more A10s. I mean, they don't go supersonic, A10 pilots probably don't need to be as well trained as fighter pilots (so you can lower requirements a bit). But in modern warfare, close air support is the most useful component of air combat. The Russians figured that out in WWII."

Are you implying the absolute "I WIN THE AVIATION INTERNETS" of the IL-2!? Because I agree!
[www.warbirdphotographs.com image 640x230]

The A-10 is absolutely fantastic at what it does and it does if for far cheaper than the F35 EVER will. The Air Force thankfully has adopted more ground-support formal instruction for their pilots, so there is that. As far as them needing less instruction than a fighter pilot... egh... air to air is the easy part now due to modern munitions. Locking in on a poorly marked target and ensuring you don't hit 20 or so friendlies in a danger-close type mission... that's a big pile of colon-puckery. Strafing with this bad bird was also done during this war and that's even more of a colon-pucker as it's not guided munition *and* there are civilian worries *and* there are friendly crunchies in the area. Tough stuff.

As for other threads worth commenting on: P51 was amazing when mated to the Merlin. Still would prefer it over the Spitfire. P-38 was a sexy awkward beast too after they knocked out all the bumps (tweaked stuff like reversing the rotation of the engines due to some weird aerodynamic factors).

the il-2 suffered obscene losses during WWII, it wasnt a good plane it was just more numerous than any combat plane ever made. additionally, the p51 is average at best (poorly armed as well) and the p38 is not very good either because of high moment of inertia. i know its unamerican to say the name p51 and not have a spontaneous ejaculation, but if you look at the performance facts of contemporary planes, you can do nothing but agree.


Fw-190 Dora-9 vs P-51D Mustang



Fw-190 D-9 Statistics:

Engine: Junkers Jumo 213A1 with MW-50 boost.
Power: 2,240 HP.
Max. Speed: 704 km/h. (438 mph.)
Max. Climb: 1110 m/min (3,642 ft/min.)
Empty Weight: 3,490 kg. (7,694 lbs.)
Loaded Weight *Clean*: 4,293 kg. (9,464 lbs.)
Max. Weight: 4,839 kg. (10,670 lbs.)
Wing-Span: 10.50 m. (34.4 ft.)
Wing-Area: 18.3 sq.m. (197 sq.ft.)
Armament: 2x 13mm HMG's (MG 131) & 2x 20mm cannons (MG 151/20).

Fw-190 D-9 Aerodynamic statistics:

Wing-loading *Loaded*: 234.59 kg/sq.m. (48 lbs/sq.ft.)
Wing Aspect-Ratio: 6.02.
Airfoil: NACA 23015.3 - NACA 23009.
Airfoil Thickness Ratio: Root= 15.3% Tip= 9% .
Wing CL-max *Freeflow*: 1.52 .

Lift-loading *Loaded*: 154.33 kg/sq.m. (31.5 lbs/sq.ft.)
Power-loading *Loaded*: 1.91 kg/hp. (4.22 lbs/hp.)

Fw-190 D-9 Additional features:

-Bubble-canopy & Flettner Tabs.
-Inclined seat position for better G-load resistance & "Kommandogerat".



P-51D Mustang Statistics:

Engine: Packard Merlin V-1650-7.
Power: 1,790 HP.
Max.Speed: 703 km/h (437mph).
Max. Climb: 1011 m/min. (3,320 ft/min)
Empty Weight: 3,466 kg. (7,641 lbs.)
Loaded Weight *Clean*: 5,034 kg. (11,100 lbs.)
Max. Weight: 5,489 kg. (12,100 lbs.)
Wing-Span: 11.3 m. (37.07 ft.)
Wing-Area: 21.64 sq.m. (233 sq.ft.)
Armament: 6x .50 cal HMG's (M2).

P-51D Mustang Aerodynamic statistics:

Wing-Loading *Loaded*: 232.62 kg/sq.m. (47.6 lbs/sq.ft.)
Wing Aspect-Ratio: 5.81 .
Airfoil: "Laminar" NAA/NACA 45-100 - NAA/NACA 45-100.
Airfoil Thickness Ratio: Root= 14.8 or 15% Tip= 12%.
Wing CL-max: 1.28 .

Lift-loading *Loaded*: 181.73 kg/sq.m. (37.18 lbs/sq.ft.)
Power-loading *Loaded*: 2.81 kg/hp. (6.2 lbs/hp.)

P-51D Mustang Additional features:

-Laminar wing & Tear-shaped canopy.
-Gyro-Gunsight.

oh, and god help help a p51 if it comes up against this baby, which is hands down the high king of all shiat ruiners of the sky.



in conclusion, USAAF did well because of numbers, not because of great planes. and that is a fact.

Desquamation: Just another Heartland Weirdass: Did anyone ever see that movie the pentagon wars?

I heard they wanted to add portholes to the F-35 so the pilots could stick their guns out to fire at the enemy.

/I know a simple yes would have been fewer keystrokes.

Wonder how that would have effected the jet's underwater performance? I'm sure they would test that though

/at least someone got te joke.

DeusMeh:
Your question is simple... the answer is difficult.

We are (hypothetically) successful in war because of air superiority. We gain air superiority with technology. We only maintain this superiority by embracing new and cutting edge technology (some of which can be retrofitted like IR-paint and various jamming and missile defense systems). Technology comes with a hefty price. So essentially, technological superiority is based on economic strength. So who can go toe-to-toe with us? Whoever can dedicate the most cost effective, asymetric, organized, combined force... and/or whoever has the deepest pockets.

The newest set of (conventional and asymmetric warfare) issues I expect our forces to face are based on electronic warfare and better (cheap) anti-air. All the air superiority in the world doesn't save my blackhawk from an IGLA-S or a Stinger. At least not yet. While such great battles can be fought in the air... war is still won on the ground.

brukmann If you think next-gen air combat involves dogfights, please stop talking.

The SU's with their ability to direct the exhaust and do things jets should not be able to do is so amazing. Instead it is all about dominating the enemy before you see you.

This is why the P51 mustang will always be so much more romantized then the jets that followed it. People can't connect to the cutting edge technolgy anymore.

We have enough nukes to kill everyone several times. We could have airplanes made out of nerf and nobody would dare invade us.

asmodeus224: elkev: A virtual flying piano, the F-35 lacks the F-16's agility in the air-to-air mode and the F-15E's range and payload in the bombing mode, and it can't even begin to compare to the A-10 at low-altitude close air support for troops engaged in combat

Is that because it wasn't designed to do any of those things?

So it wasn't designed to fight air to air, it isn't designed to attack ground targets, it isn't designed to support ground troops? What is left? Photo ops?

It was designed to spread as much money to as many defense contractors as possible.It has been a resounding success.

Riothamus: Happy Hours: spcMike: Oznog: The SR71 Blackbird would be easy to criticize too. I mean, such a piece of junk, it leaks fuel all over the runway because it can't seal its own airframe when cold. It lacks the technology of a $10 jerry can. So a person could readily conclude it's an ill-designed piece of junk that was never designed to actually be USED.

The leaks are actually meant to be in there as the heat generated by the aircraft in flight causes the fuel tank to expand. Without the holes in the tank it would've over pressurized and burst.

But lets not bring engineering into this.

sounds like they didn't. I would think engineering would overcome such a problem without having it leak fuel.

PV=nRT

kthxbai

Because there's absolutely no other way to solve this problem other than to allow it to leak.

Clemkadidlefark: I call shenanigans. On source and reportage

Right, because anything printed in Mother Jones is a commie lie, but anything broadcast on Fox News is the God's Honest Unvarnished TROOF!

/"but they wouldn't let Fox say it if'n it warnt true?!?"

How many more times will this be green-lit this week?

Chief_ Danz153A: DeusMeh:
Your question is simple... the answer is difficult.

We are (hypothetically) successful in war because of air superiority. We gain air superiority with technology. We only maintain this superiority by embracing new and cutting edge technology (some of which can be retrofitted like IR-paint and various jamming and missile defense systems). Technology comes with a hefty price. So essentially, technological superiority is based on economic strength. So who can go toe-to-toe with us? Whoever can dedicate the most cost effective, asymetric, organized, combined force... and/or whoever has the deepest pockets.

The newest set of (conventional and asymmetric warfare) issues I expect our forces to face are based on electronic warfare and better (cheap) anti-air. All the air superiority in the world doesn't save my blackhawk from an IGLA-S or a Stinger. At least not yet. While such great battles can be fought in the air... war is still won on the ground.

so you mean to say...air to air, nobody. surface to air...pretty much anybody with a get up sophisticated enough to counter our stealth tech for about 1/1000 of the cost of one of our fighters.

so why are we developing fighter jets anymore?

Happy Hours: Riothamus: Happy Hours: spcMike: Oznog: The SR71 Blackbird would be easy to criticize too. I mean, such a piece of junk, it leaks fuel all over the runway because it can't seal its own airframe when cold. It lacks the technology of a $10 jerry can. So a person could readily conclude it's an ill-designed piece of junk that was never designed to actually be USED.

The leaks are actually meant to be in there as the heat generated by the aircraft in flight causes the fuel tank to expand. Without the holes in the tank it would've over pressurized and burst.

But lets not bring engineering into this.

sounds like they didn't. I would think engineering would overcome such a problem without having it leak fuel.

PV=nRT

kthxbai

Because there's absolutely no other way to solve this problem other than to allow it to leak.

there is, but it costs alot of wieght. for combat aircraft, weight = death

Happy Hours: Because there's absolutely no other way to solve this problem other than to allow it to leak.

In the case of the SR-71 there wasn't.

Publikwerks: [cache.gawkerassets.com image 300x169]

These guys are the future, not the F-35

Very very much so.

Why the hell would you risk the life of an actual pilot if you don't have to? Yes, they will be slower to react, but you can send farking swarms of them and not put a single pilot at risk.

lazyguineapig33: the il-2 suffered obscene losses during WWII, it wasnt a good plane it was just more numerous than any combat plane ever made.

the IL-2 was a ground attack plane afaik and nobody was a match for a fully equipped Luftwaffe. That isn't a fair comparison.

Riothamus: I've never understood why the USAF never opened up a pure ground-attack pilot school for people who only wanted to fly A10s, and ordered more A10s. I mean, they don't go supersonic, A10 pilots probably don't need to be as well trained as fighter pilots (so you can lower requirements a bit).

Christ, you really need to educate yourself.

roothog: Ehh: The P-38: "1937 Army specification for an interceptor that could reach 20,000 feet in 6 minutes...appeared in force in the Southwest Pacific in mid-1943."

So the procurement system hasn't been corrupted since then?

P-38s first started flying January 1939, entered operational service 1941. Part of the delay was debugging the shift in center of lift in high-speed flight, which was an unknown physical phenomenon at the time, causing control lock and crash. The engineers actually had to learn new scientific facts about the world to make the plane work.

My point exactly! They got it working in short order despite enormous hurdles and made thousands of units. Now it takes 5 times as long and god knows how much more money to produce a superduperplane that kills its pilot far more reliably than the early P-38 did.

The current defense procurement system is corrupt. Speaking of the A-10, didn't the guy who got two different companies to compete (!) for the A-10's ammo contract get fired by the Pentagon years ago?

Happy Hours: Riothamus: Happy Hours: spcMike: Oznog: The SR71 Blackbird would be easy to criticize too. I mean, such a piece of junk, it leaks fuel all over the runway because it can't seal its own airframe when cold. It lacks the technology of a $10 jerry can. So a person could readily conclude it's an ill-designed piece of junk that was never designed to actually be USED.

The leaks are actually meant to be in there as the heat generated by the aircraft in flight causes the fuel tank to expand. Without the holes in the tank it would've over pressurized and burst.

But lets not bring engineering into this.

sounds like they didn't. I would think engineering would overcome such a problem without having it leak fuel.

PV=nRT

kthxbai

Because there's absolutely no other way to solve this problem other than to allow it to leak.

When you're working with unproven technology and unknown limits in the mid-1960s? Probably not. They already had to make the damn thing out of titanium to deal with extreme air-friction-generated heat.

And the workaround they used with the leakage worked pretty well. Load the SR71 up with enough fuel to get it airborne and then top off the tanks once you get it in the air.

Enemabag Jones: The SU's with their ability to direct the exhaust and do things jets should not be able to do is so amazing.

The F-22 does that as well.

And as always, this is never about airframe v airframe. There are many, many other factors. Logistics, comms, pilot skill, interoperability, etc, etc.

DeusMeh: so why are we developing fighter jets anymore?

Because the drone air to air isn't quite there yet.

WhyteRaven74: Fish in a Barrel: The paradigm wasn't exactly well explored

Explored enough the military didn't expect any significant issues. Then issues happened. There was a pretty good amount of flight test data, especially from the XV-15, when they decided to go for the V-22. On the other side there was the F-117 which was ordered up after the Air Force was impressed by the results of the Have Blue program, which was shorter and didn't ever get to produce as much data. The F-117 was a big departure from any previously built airplane and it was delivered on time and on budget. Then again it was done by Lockheed's Skunk Works whereas the V-22 was a joint project between Boeing and Bell, a joint venture that only occurred because the DoD told contractors to team up. Bell had figured they'd do it themselves, then partnered up with Boeing cause basically that's what the DoD wanted and well Boeing was willing.

Part of the reason for the on-cost, on-time delivery of the F-117 is that they used a lot of off-the-shelf parts (which helped them hide the program). The success of the program focused on one feature, which was stealth. Everything else was a compromise. It has no afterburner, can't fly supersonic, has a relatively short range, and has no ability to defend itself. In addition, we learned from Kosovo that the plane could be detected by radar, which was not good news and certainly hastened the demise of the plane.

MorePeasPlease: Riothamus: I've never understood why the USAF never opened up a pure ground-attack pilot school for people who only wanted to fly A10s, and ordered more A10s. I mean, they don't go supersonic, A10 pilots probably don't need to be as well trained as fighter pilots (so you can lower requirements a bit).

Christ, you really need to educate yourself.

On what? The A-10 is a simpler, slower aircraft than just about anything else in the US arsenal. It's not a hell of a lot faster than the prop planes from WWII, and we cranked out TONS of pilots back then. And for the price of one F35, we could build about 15 A10s. And the F35 isn't particularly useful when fighting an insurgency.

So on what, exactly, do I need to educate myself?

brukmann: If you think next-gen air combat involves dogfights, please stop talking.

....is what they said in the 1950s. They were wrong. The end of the dogfight is like fusion power, it's always just 10 years away.

Not to mention the kind of agility needed to win dogfights is the same agility needed to evade missiles. Stealth is all well and good but if it's your only line of defense there's a warhead out there with your name on it.

Our planes should be designed by Japanese anime artists. They always have the coolest designs.
Love this scene

Of course it's a piece of crap. If one guy in a truck with a Beretta can take one down...

YouPeopleAreCrazy,Enemabag Jones: The SU's with their ability to direct the exhaust and do things jets should not be able to do is so amazing.
The F-22 does that as well.
And as always, this is never about airframe v airframe. There are many, many other factors. Logistics, comms, pilot skill, interoperability, etc, etc.

I think that was my point. I am not a military nerd and these thread are full of people that are pretty unforgiving on noobs....however.

The F22 is given a bad rap for being too expensive, unable to fly in the rain, too software dependent if there is a glitch, made for big wars we don't fight, ect.

One thing the F22 was good for was knocking enemies out of the air before the F22 was seen. Maybe the directed jets are good for avoiding missles, but they don't seem to have a definite purpose beyond airshows if one side has air superiority.

And the SU's are so sexy too.

YouPeopleAreCrazy: DeusMeh: so why are we developing fighter jets anymore?

Because the drone air to air isn't quite there yet.

what, we can't shoot down drones with SAMs that are 1/1000 the cost of a fighter jet too?

intelligent comment below: lazyguineapig33: the il-2 suffered obscene losses during WWII, it wasnt a good plane it was just more numerous than any combat plane ever made.

the IL-2 was a ground attack plane afaik and nobody was a match for a fully equipped Luftwaffe. That isn't a fair comparison.

Yeah. The IL-2 was basically the A10 of its time. Armored ground attack aircraft. We wouldn't send A10s against MiGs, and it's not like any of our current or projected enemies can challenge our air dominance until we replace everything with the F35 anyway.

Gunther: elkev: A virtual flying piano, the F-35 lacks the F-16's agility in the air-to-air mode and the F-15E's range and payload in the bombing mode, and it can't even begin to compare to the A-10 at low-altitude close air support for troops engaged in combat

Is that because it wasn't designed to do any of those things?

It can't really do anything else well, either.

That's kinda the problem with multi-role fighters: even if trying to make it do many things at once didn't make it impossibly complex and incredibly difficult to maintain, it'd still be inferior at a given task to an aircraft 1/20th the price that specialized in it.

Yea, because when the F-22 was conceived in design, and a prototype was built, the USAF liked it better than the Boeing design. Then, during the initial build, the USAF comes back to Lockheed and says, "hey can you add this to its capabilities?" "Sure, but that will cost XX." USAF: "no problem." Then, after the USAF gets a few of the F22s, they ask Lockheed, "can you add this to it's features?" "Sure, that it will cost XX for engineering and manufacturing." USAF: "no problem."

So, what started out as an air superiority fighter, has turned into a clusterfark, because the USAF wants everything in one plane, since they probably won't be able to get another smaller, cheaper one.

The F-35 is designated as the Joint Strike Fighter. This is the airplane that will be sold to NATO and FMS (foreign military sales). It's designed to be an upgrade to the F-16, but also for the Marines (replacement for the Harrier). The Pentagon went with the F-35 because the prototype passed all the tests that the Pentagon brass wanted to see, including air-air refueling, harrier option (the Boeing design would have had to be field modified to be VTOL).

So, don't blame the defense contractor, blame the USAF for their clusterfark.

The future is all "zerg rush", drones, baby. Whatever technology, you will be assimilated.

WhyteRaven74: Fish in a Barrel: . Revolutionary designs like that tend to kill a lot of people during development.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 640x426]

The Bell XV-3, first flight 1955, continued being flown until 1966.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 640x487]

Bell XV-15, first flight 1977, flew until 2003.

Two of each were built, and in each case one was damaged yet in both cases the pilots were only injured and in the case of the XV-15 the incident was due a loose bolt, not anything to do with the actual design. And it was the success of the XV-15 that lead to the V-22 program.

Wow the budgets were a little different then...from wiki:

XV-15 Project


XV-15 taking off at NASA Dryden
What was to become the XV-15 program was launched in 1971 at NASA Ames Research Center. After preliminary work, a competition was held to award two $0.5 million research and development contracts for prototype designs. Companies that responded included Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation, Grumman Aircraft, Boeing-Vertol, and Bell Helicopter.

loonatic112358: Pentagon

Well, in all fairness, it's an article from Mother Jones.

Fish in a Barrel: HeartlessLibertarian: The Boeing X-32 Should have won the Joint Strike Fighter Competition, it was a far superior design and actually inovative and used new technology...Not just old ideas made more expensive and more complicated.

Uh... what? The JSF contract explicitly called for no new technology. It was supposed to be as low-risk as possible. Boeing actually protested Lockheed's win, in part, because Lockheed's lift-fan was a new concept, which Boeing felt violated the competition constraints.

Yes, it was originally proposed as a low-cost, lightweight, common platform for all services (Common Affordable Lightweight Fighter). It may be many things, good and bad, but it's not affordable, and it's not exactly the lightest weight.

Riothamus: he A-10 is a simpler, slower aircraft than just about anything else in the US arsenal.

Which has approximately fark-all to do with how well trained the pilots need to be.

If anything the A-10 pilot's job is 10 times harder. Unlike modern fighters, the aircraft is flown manually (they don't even have a route autopilot, you fly the flight-plan legs by hand), there's an implicit expectation that you will be bringing it home with damage due to ground fire, and you don't have the kinematics needed to evade missiles, which means you have to fight smart: spot the enemy air defenses before they spot you, use terrain as cover, and fly really damn low. At night. Over hostile territory. With no radar. And you have to spot your targets by eyeball, because your only sensor system is an *optional* FLIR pod with an extremely narrow field of view, and your weapons have a maximum range of only a couple of miles.

Think of it like comparing a Bonneville salt flats racer to a rally driver. The rally driver may not be going anywhere near as fast, but given the properties of the course, he's going as fast as any sane man would go. Neither one of them is an easy job.

otto the bull: ...flying piano....

Delivered old skool: Link

Oh look, more people who don't understand the lethal combination of very small radar cross section^, integrated sensor suites^ and fused data in the modern battlespace. Official releases have said the RCS of the F-35 is equal to that of a metal golf ball (yes, without external stores); I'm going to bet it's smaller, while the F-16 is several square meters. Good luck getting a radar lock on that small target at even 5 miles... oh wait, you were already taken out at 60 miles by an AMRAAM-D that you didn't know had targeted you until it went active in the terminal stage. You might have had a chance of detecting the missile in flight if you knew where to point your TWS-mode system, since it's larger than a metal golf ball... but other than that your only warning would have been those random blips of electron pulses that your threat indicator couldn't make heads or tails of while the F-35 was targeting you.

Wait, what about WVR dogfights? Great, you can see the thing at 3/4 mile in front of you, turning hard with you at 7 Gs... but your radar system can't, and therefore neither can your fire control system for guns - good luck eyeballing that shot. IR missiles might have a chance, but then so do his. Read up on engine-matched IR decoy flares and the DIRCMs. In anything other than a rear-60º IR missile shot at close range with a lot of luck on your side, 5th-Gen fighters are just not a fair fight. The F-22 is even better.

Ahh, but the F-16 is a proven CAS fighter... yeah, about that: a major component of effective CAS is loiter time, where you are available to be called on by the TACP on the ground. The F-16 has just over 7k lbs of internal fuel capacity, while the F-35 has more than 18k lbs internal load, so even with two 600-gal external tanks on the F-16 the F-35 has longer loiter time with internal capacity alone. Also a major component of effective CAS is not being shot down by SAMs.

I also love that some people think that a drone with C&C happening through long range satellite link is the end-all of air combat. While drones certainly have their place and maybe one day can perform certain types of air-to-air combat manuevering autonomously (because remote piloting in a dogfight = fail), we are a long way from that point still. Ideally I would think a flight of semi-autonomous stealthy drones would accompany a few manned aircraft into the battlespace that served as their "masters in the hunt," and come 2040 we can talk more about how that concept is working out. That movie Stealth was retarded, but had the idea at least close.

Whether we will need any of these advanced capabilities in future skirmishes/wars is, however, a totally different, and interesting, topic. I would argue that just having such aircraft in our arsenal can defuse or deter many small-war situations that could potentially arise.

Continue on ranting about the "inferiority" of the current generation of fighters, though, it's entertaining in a way. While you're at it, do some thinking about the life expectancy of being a sturdy multirole 4th-Gen fighter in the SAM and radar-guided AAA threat environment of 2020.

Because there's absolutely no other way to solve this problem other than to allow it to leak.

I'm not really sure that there is away around the leaky gas tank, given the altitude and speed that its supposed to fly at.

So whats your design, Einstein?

Riothamus: MorePeasPlease: Riothamus: I've never understood why the USAF never opened up a pure ground-attack pilot school for people who only wanted to fly A10s, and ordered more A10s. I mean, they don't go supersonic, A10 pilots probably don't need to be as well trained as fighter pilots (so you can lower requirements a bit).

Christ, you really need to educate yourself.

On what? The A-10 is a simpler, slower aircraft than just about anything else in the US arsenal. It's not a hell of a lot faster than the prop planes from WWII, and we cranked out TONS of pilots back then. And for the price of one F35, we could build about 15 A10s. And the F35 isn't particularly useful when fighting an insurgency.

So on what, exactly, do I need to educate myself?

You need more training to do danger close air support than you do to drop a smart bomb from fl 350 while booming at just subsonic speeds. Guided Munitions= Sledgehammer, Avenger= Scalpel

lazyguineapig33: in conclusion, USAAF did well because of numbers, not because of great planes. and that is a fact.

The top line prop planes of Gemany, UK, US and even Japan were close enough in performance characteristics (each with its own strengths and weaknesses) that the real difference was in pilot quality.

F4U-1D, F6F-3, and FW190-A5 Comparison Report

WWII Aircraft performance

During the war the US actually had a policy of rotating its best pilots from combat to training and test pilot assignments so they could pass on their knowldege to new pilots. Germany and Japan were never really able to do this in the same way and as they lost many of their best pilots to attrition the quality of the new pilots suffered.

"The quality of the kite matters little, sucess depends upon the man sitting in it" Manfred von Richthofen

/ The F4U-4 IMHO was ther best all around prop fighter of WWII.

tlchwi02: ok, for the source whiners:

Link

'Foreign Policy'. that should be a fair enough source.

A great and the comments by Mike Walker was an eye-opener. Thank you for posting.

a great read

Riothamus: MorePeasPlease: Riothamus: I've never understood why the USAF never opened up a pure ground-attack pilot school for people who only wanted to fly A10s, and ordered more A10s. I mean, they don't go supersonic, A10 pilots probably don't need to be as well trained as fighter pilots (so you can lower requirements a bit).

Christ, you really need to educate yourself.

On what? The A-10 is a simpler, slower aircraft than just about anything else in the US arsenal. It's not a hell of a lot faster than the prop planes from WWII, and we cranked out TONS of pilots back then. And for the price of one F35, we could build about 15 A10s. And the F35 isn't particularly useful when fighting an insurgency.

So on what, exactly, do I need to educate myself?

Yeah, I'm a bit confused, too. I think the issue may be your statement about training, which I think was misunderstood. I don't think that you meant that flying an A-10 was easy or required little training; what I understood you saying was that flying an A-10 doesn't demand the same nimbleness as a supersonic fighter flying on and off carriers and/or getting into dogfights. I understand this to be generally true; I have been told that training for A-10 pilots is more focused on tactics and identification. They spend relatively much more time shooting than maneuvering, and are generally flown with fighter support for protection, since they can't do that mission. The idea behind the F-35 was to meld the two functions together, but that idea has been questioned, since with two separate aircraft you can have separate (and more appropriate) tools and pilots focusing on the task at hand (which is demanding enough).

lazyguineapig33: Fw-190 Dora-9


Eh, it's not really fair to compare that model of FW190 to the P-51D. The P-51D arrived in Europe in spring 1944. The Dora didn't even hit production until that August. Might not seem like a long time nowadays, but the P-51 itself went from initial sketches to a working prototype within 6 months. And that summer killed the Luftwaffe.

Regardless, I think the only huge edge the Dora had over the Mustang was its fuel injection system. The mustang used a carburetor, so the 190 could beat it in a dive. The armament difference was practically nil, as the 190 had 2x13mm and 2x20mm, and the P-51D had 6x12.7mm. Having all of your guns in the same caliber helps a lot when lining up shots.