Top_Gunn

My Feedback: (6)

That's a convincing argument. It's not all that surprising that demand for the D.!V after the war was absent, because by that time all rotary engines, not just the Siemens version, were obsolete. And it was the engine that gave it its impressive performance, so the rest of it wasn't anything special: It was designed around that particular engine. I had wondered about the absence of specific descriptions of the D.IV in action, too. The argument that it was better than the Fokker D.VII is based on performance figures, not combat statistics. Perhaps its engine wasn't much more durable than its predecessors' engines.

Ernie P.

My Feedback: (3)

And another question is whether those performance figures were "observed" figures, "as tested" figures or "predicted" figures. A lot of aircraft never met their "predicted" figures. Not knocking your choice of subjects, Buddy; I'm just pointing out the D.IV may not have ever been the world beater it was, many, many years later, touted to be. I don't think France, Britain or the U.S. spent much time testing and measuring the D.IV. And, for a good reason. Thanks; Ernie P.

Hydro Junkie

Okay guys, I'm going to throw a little something into this one for you all to ponder. You are talking about and comparing a pair of planes that didn't have much time in combat. Let me do a little comparing of some planes that, 24 years later, showed they weren't world beaters but held there own.
In December 1941 and through the first several months of 1942, the Allies were being beaten back at every turn by a Japanese military that was virtually unstoppable. In the air, the allies were using the P-39, P-40, F4F-3, F2A and the Hurricane. There were a few P-36s, P-38s, Gladiators and early mark Spitfires thrown in as well but not enough to matter. We all know that, by the end of 1943, almost all of the planes listed were out of combat, except the F4F-4, P-38 and Spitfire. Their primary opponent was the A6M-2/3, a plane they couldn't match in range(other than the P38), speed(other than the Spitfire, P-38 and P-40), or maneuverability. By the end of 1943, there were only three of the combatants left to oppose the Japanese, the P-38, P-40(in China) and the slower F4F-4. The Spitfire had become the "hero" of the RAF during the Battle of Britain, tangling with the BF-109s while the Hurricane had done most of the fighting against the German bombers and was serving, along side P-40s, in North Africa. The P-39 had become the "go to" fighter along the Eastern Front, taking on the best the Luftwaffe had and besting them more often than not. The Brewster F2A was basically a gunnery target at Midway yet, when flown against the Russians in Finland, tore up the planes the Russians put against it. How is it, that planes that were chased out of the Pacific were so good in other fronts? Was the A6M that good? Were the Allied fighters that bad? Was it a matter of pilot quality and training? It was actually a bit of all three.

• We all know the A6M was optimized for fighting below 15,000 feet, removing the requirements for onboard oxygen and a multistage supercharger. The plane was under powered and yet, when flown by experienced pilots, up to 15,000 feet, nothing could touch it as it was lighter, could out maneuver and outclimb almost everything
• Allied pilots were trained to "dogfight". The problem was the planes they were given were heavier and, in the case of the F2A, more under powered than the A6M
• Allied planes were built to take punishment and were able to take it, that is until they were hit by the heavier 20mm rounds fired by the A6M wing mounted cannons

The other issue is all the fighters the allies flew were judged against those of what was foreseen to be the true adversary, the Luftwaffe. With the exception of the carrier based Wildcat and land based Buffalo, all the fighters, at the beginning of the war were fairly even in capabilities. Obviously, with it's single stage supercharger, the Allison powered planes had an altitude disadvantage. At low levels, however, they proved to be equal to or better than the BF-109 they were flying against. That brings the question "What happened in the Pacific?" It comes down to training and tactics. What worked in Europe didn't work against the Japanese. Wildcat pilots learned the same lessons as the P-40 pilots had over China,

• use your plane's strengths to their greatest advantage
• never try to dogfight against an A6M
• if you were in a bad position, break off and re-engage when your position allowed it. This was the one thing that changed when the Hellcat and Corsair came into combat as they were fast enough to get out of a bad position without disengaging

By the end of 1943, the Wildcat would have been taken out of combat but, due to it's smaller size, it soldiered on on the escort carriers, adding to its record and making it's mark in history.

Top_Gunn

My Feedback: (6)

I pretty much agree with that, although according to Wikipedia (not necessarily a reliable source, but usually OK on non-political topics), the Wildcat had a very favorable kill ratio against the Zero even in 1942. To be sure, that's based on statistics from the same sorts of people who claimed the F-86 shot down MiG 15s at about a 10 to 1 ratio, which is plainly false. The Wildcats were taken off the big carriers not because they were bad, but because the Hellcats were better. The FM2 version of the Wildcat, with a more powerful engine, was even better than the Grumman versions, I think.

Interesting Wildcat story from "Flights of Passage," by Samuel Hynes, who was a TBM pilot. He and another Avenger pilot were stuck on an island for a month or so with nothing to do, so they somehow gave people the impression they were fighter pilots and so got to take Wildcats and Hellcats up just to keep in shape. He said the Wildcat was fun to fly and handled well, while the Hellcat was like driving your father's Cadillac around the block: easy but boring. I suppose easy but boring is a good trait for a plane that's being flown by a lot of very-low-time pilots.

Hydro Junkie

What you have to remember is that, after Midway, the Americans had a complete A6M to test against and devise tactics. That A6M was captured, basically intact, five weeks after an air raid against an American base at Dutch Harbor, in the Aleutian Islands, during "the side show" that featured the landings on Attu and Kiska. The plane was damaged during the attack and it's pilot, Tadayoshi Koga, tried to land the damaged plane on Akutan Island, flipping the plane in the soft marsh and breaking his neck. After being recovered, the plane was repaired, using parts from other captured wrecks and fabricating the rest, and test flown. It was discovered that the A6M had difficulty rolling to the right(probably due to the engine turning that direction) and was unable to dive due to an issue with the carburetor design(something similar to issues with the Rolls Royce Merlin, it tended to flood the carburetor float bowl when forced into a negative "G" dive). Knowing these two issues, along with the plane's light construction, made the plane easier to deal with and, along with Japan losing many of it's experienced pilots during the fighting at Coral Sea, Midway and over the Solomon Islands, the American pilots were able to not only meet the infamous Japanese plane on almost even terms they were soon able to defeat it, bringing the kill ratio into the Wildcat's favor

stang151

Hey guys, just checked in and, wow, I guess that wasn't such a W.A.G. after all. I'll try to get something up by tomorrow.

Ernie P.

My Feedback: (3)

Some interesting thoughts, Sir. I can't dispute anything you said. It all comes down to knowing the capabilities of your plane AND your enemies; then figuring out what kind of fight you can win; and refusing to get drawn into any other type of fight. Early in the war, the U.S. and Allied pilots wanted to dogfight with the Zekes. Very bad move.

For some reason, I find myself thinking about Richthofen, who forbade his pilots from "stunting" in combat. I think his tactics (essentially boom and zoom for much of the war) have stood the test of time. Thanks; Ernie P.

elmshoot

My Feedback: (6)

Fight smart is always important. Knowing your enemy by study of captured equipment was a great equalizer.


my rendition of a captured airplane. Anchors away!
Sparky

Ernie P.

My Feedback: (3)

All; I wanted to mention something in passing, concerning rotary engines. Rotary engines had one great saving grace; they were very powerful (horsepower) for their weight (in pounds). It wasn't until well into the 1930's that radial engines and straight (inline or v-8/v-12. etc.), even when supercharged or turbocharged, could match rotary engines in power/weight ratios. That is why rotary engines were so popular in the early days of aviation. But rotaries required an oil which could be burned in the cylinders; i.e., castor oil. And breathing castor oil fumes had the same effect as taking oral doses of it. Early aviation was a very dirty business. Thanks; Ernie P.

Ernie P.

My Feedback: (3)

Sir; please post your question. Thanks; Ernie P.

Ernie P.

My Feedback: (3)

stang151; please post your question today. Otherwise, we will have to move on. Thanks; Ernie P.

stang151

Ok guys, sorry for the delay, life,ect.

Looking for a warbird,


1. Built as an improvement of an earlier plane, bigger, faster, and of course heaver.

2. Built by a division of the manufacturer of the "stars".

3. One glance and a knowledgeable observer would know it's origin.

4. Used by several countries.

Sekhet

My Feedback: (1)

OK, I'll start the ball rolling with the Lockheed C-141 Starlifter.

stang151

No, not the Starlifter. So a couple more clues.

Looking for a warbird,


1. Built as an improvement of an earlier plane, bigger, faster, and of course heaver.

2. Built by a division of the manufacturer of the "stars".

3. One glance and a knowledgeable observer would know it's origin.

4. Used by several countries.

5. In it's first use in combat, by an alley, it was found wanting. It was pulled from the front line and assigned a more mundane it not much needed role, at which it excelled.

6. Two of the home country's services ordered it but with different engines. one with slightly less power than which it was designed for.

Hydro Junkie

How about the F-89 Scorpion? Looked very similar to the P-80 Shooting Star

Ernie P.

My Feedback: (3)

Sparky; nice color scheme and good workmanship. The American insignias do look a bit strange, however. Thanks; Ernie P.

Ernie P.

My Feedback: (3)

Okay; how about the lawn dart? Thanks; Ernie P.


Answer: F-104 Starfighter



The Lockheed F-104 Starfighter is an American single-engine, supersonic interceptor aircraft which became widely used as a fighter-bomber during the Cold War. Initially a day fighter, it was developed into an all-weather fighter in the late 1960s. It was originally developed by Lockheed for the United States Air Force (USAF), but was later produced by several other nations, seeing widespread service outside the United States. One of the Century Series of fighter aircraft, it was operated by the air forces of more than a dozen nations from 1958 to 2004. Its design team was led by Kelly Johnson, who contributed to the development of the Lockheed P-38 Lightning, Lockheed U-2, Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird, and other Lockheed aircraft.



The F-104 set numerous world records, including for both airspeed and altitude. Its success was marred by the Lockheed bribery scandals, in which Lockheed had given bribes to many foreign political and military figures to secure purchase contracts; this caused political controversy in Europe and Japan.



The poor safety record of the Starfighter, especially in German Air Force (Luftwaffe) service, also brought the aircraft into the public eye. Fighter ace Erich Hartmann was put into early retirement from the Luftwaffe[4] due to his outspoken opposition to the selection of the F-104.



The final production version of the fighter model was the F-104S, an all-weather interceptor designed by Aeritalia for the Italian Air Force, and equipped with radar-guided AIM-7 Sparrow missiles. An advanced F-104 with a high-mounted wing, known as the CL-1200 Lancer, was considered, but did not proceed past the mock-up stage.



Although the F-104 was designed as an air-superiority fighter, the United States Air Force's immediate need at the time was for a supersonic interceptor. In the late 1950s, the United States government believed it was significantly behind the USSR in terms of the size of its jet-powered bomber fleet. In response, the USAF had ordered two interceptors from Convair, the F-102 Delta Dagger and the F-106 Delta Dart, but both aircraft were experiencing long development delays. The Starfighter's speed and rate-of-climb performance intrigued the Air Force, who pressed the F-104A into service as an interim interceptor with the Air Defense Command (ADC), even though its range and armament were not well-suited for the role. On 26 February 1958, the first unit to become operational with the F-104A was the 83rd Fighter Interceptor Squadron at Hamilton AFB, California.[51]



The newly operational aircraft experienced problems with both the J79 engine and M61 cannon, and after three months of service, the unit was grounded following a series of engine-related accidents. The aircraft were then fitted with the J79-GE-3B engine and another three ADC units were equipped with the F-104A. During this time, the Air Force's interest in the Starfighter was waning due to a shift in strategy toward fighters with longer ranges and heavier ordnance loads.[58] As a result, the USAF reduced their orders of the F-104A from 722 to 170,[59] and the F-104A and F-104B aircraft of the 83rd, 56th, and 337th Fighter Interceptor Squadrons (FIS) were handed over to the 151st, 157th, and 197th Squadrons of the Air National Guard after less than a year of service with the ADC.



The Starfighter served with NASA from 1956 until 1994. A total of 12 F-104A, F-104B, F-104N, and TF-104G aircraft performed high-speed and altitude flight research at Dryden Flight Research Center. The F-104 also performed many safety chase missions in support of advanced research aircraft, and provided a launch platform for sounding rockets.[112]



In August 1956, the USAF transferred YF-104A serial number 55-2961 to the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA, the predecessor of NASA), designating it NF-104A. In preparation for the X-15 test program of the late 1950s, it was fitted with the reaction control system (RCS) consisting of hydrogen peroxide-powered thrusters mounted in the aircraft's nose and wingtips. This system provided valuable experience for future X-15 pilots and astronauts in spacecraft control and maneuverability. The trials began in 1959 and concluded in 1961, after which the aircraft was used for other NASA purposes until it was retired in November 1975.[112]



Between August and October 1963, Lockheed delivered three single-seat F-104G Starfighters to NASA, designated F-104N, for use as high-speed chase aircraft. These were the only Starfighters built by Lockheed specifically for NASA; all other NASA aircraft were transferred from the USAF. The third of these F-104Ns, number 013, was destroyed on 8 June 1966 in a mid-air collision with a North American XB-70 during a publicity photo flight for General Electric.[112]



One NASA F-104G, registration N826NA, was equipped with a flight test fixture (FTF) consisting of a pylon mounted on the fuselage centerline. The FTF contained instruments to record and transmit research data in real-time to engineers in mission control at Dryden. One application of the FTF was testing heat-resistant tiles for use on the Space Shuttle, ensuring their bonding was sufficient at high speeds and evaluating their performance when exposed to moisture. The last of these missions flew on 31 January 1994, bringing the F-104's service with NASA to a close after more than 18,000 flights.

Use as space launch platform

In 2011, 4Frontiers Corporation and Starfighters Inc (a private F-104 operator) began working together on a project to launch suborbital sounding rockets from F-104s flying out of Kennedy Space Center. First launches were expected to occur in 2012. As of 16 July 2017, both the 4Frontiers Corporation and Star Lab suborbital websites were unresponsive, and there appeared to be no mention of 4Frontiers or the joint project on the Starfighters Inc website.



In early 2016, another venture, CubeCab, was working on a rocket system that would launch CubeSats from F-104s. The company said it planned to begin providing launch services "in early 2020".

stang151

No not the 89,80, or 104 So a couple more clues to muddy the water a little

Looking for a warbird,


1. Built as an improvement of an earlier plane, bigger, faster, and of course heaver.

2. Built by a division of the manufacturer of the "stars".

3. One glance and a knowledgeable observer would know it's origin.

4. Used by several countries.

5. In it's first use in combat, by an alley, it was found wanting. It was pulled from the front line and assigned a more mundane if. not much needed role, at which it excelled.

6. Two of the home country's services ordered it but with different engines. one with slightly less power than which it was designed for.

7. As they came off the production line most were endorsed by a somewhat famous mouse and his pals.

8. Had a wing planform that some say, Bruce Wayne would approve of.

Hydro Junkie

Okay Sparky, you almost got it right. The dark blue should have gone back to the forward end of the vertical stab and maybe slightly upward, IF you were trying to match the US Navy paint scheme from 1944 through the end of WWII. BTW, is that a 190 or a 152? I can never tell the difference

Hydro Junkie

I'm probably wrong but how about the A-4AR Fighting Hawk? Maybe the VH-71 Kestrel?

elmshoot

My Feedback: (6)

Hydro,
The artist rendering show one color pattern but the pictures are as conclusive it didn't. I went with the best information we had. Its an ARF so it technically will only be static judge on a, "yep that's the plane".
The paint line has been changed somewhat but it doesn't have a Mohawk down the spine.
This is a FW-190-5 and the actual captured plane is a -3. The bomb rack and fairing were molded into the belly of the model so they were left in place as well as the wing racks. All were removed after it was captured in Italy.
I much prefer the D9 version with the inline engine with a longer nose which makes balance easier. This one has 30+oz of weight in the front to balance.
Sparky

stang151

No right guesses so far so a couple more.

Looking for a warbird,


1. Built as an improvement of an earlier plane, bigger, faster, and of course heaver.

2. Built by a division of the manufacturer of the "stars".

3. One glance and a knowledgeable observer would know it's origin.

4. Used by several countries.

5. In it's first use in combat, by an alley, it was found wanting. It was pulled from the front line and assigned a more mundane if. not much needed role, at which it excelled.

6. Two of the home country's services ordered it but with different engines. one with slightly less power than which it was designed for.

7. As they came off the production line most were endorsed by a somewhat famous mouse and his pals.

8. Had a wing planform that some say, Bruce Wayne would approve of.

9. This was the result of the large effective landing flap system.

10.Though not as nimble as the fighters it would come across, it's crews knew it had an ace in the hole, speed.

Hydro Junkie

Works for me, just never seen a three tone that didn't have the sea blue run all the way back to the tail. In the video I linked, "Jolly Rogers" Corsair 31 has more of the classic three color scheme I'm used to seeing. Yes, I know there are variations on that scheme, just never seen your version before.

elmshoot

My Feedback: (6)

Hydro there was only one painted like this. Likely painted like this on a lark by a bunch of sailors. I think I have 8 pictures of the airplane all in B&W that are poorly exposed so it was quite difficult to determine the exact paint lines. The plane was only flown about 15 hours and then cut up for further study/junk. I consulted with the National Museum of Naval Aviation, the Pax river aviation Museum and several prominent Plastic scale modelers for help in sorting this out. It's the best I could do with the info at hand.
Sparky

Hydro Junkie

Works for me, just never seen a three tone that didn't have the sea blue run all the way back to the tail. In the video I linked, Corsair 31 has more of the classic three color scheme I'm used to seeing. Yes, there are variations on that scheme, just never seen your version before.