Capt. John points us to the music of the twin-pistons on the deHavilland DH98 Mosquito, the “Timber Terror”. But for ground attack in the period, especially when folks are shooting back, give me the Jug any day.
Set to O Fortuna, if it suits you:
While we’re on the topic of music and aircraft, aviation enthusiast and occasional reader Deodo sends along this video of naval operations aboard the RFS Kuznetsov, set to appropriately patriotic tones. An interesting concept, using a bow ramp versus catapults to launch aircraft. Vastly reduces the complexity and cost of the ship, but also impacts things such as usable deck space, total aircraft load-out and aircraft gross weight (stores, weapons, etc.) Smaller than the Nimitz-class of course, and hard to know what can usefully be done with a dozen or so Su-33’s and a half a dozen Frogfoots. Or Frogfeet. Whichever.
The navalised Flanker is a cool looking piece of kit, but I’m not 100% in love with a navalised Su-25, especially after watching this one do the “whale dance” and scrape a speedbrake.
I’ve always wondered why they scrapped all the Jugs and kept the P-51s after WWII. The P-51s transistioned into a CAS role as the jets came in. They were hardly suited for it as one rifle round in the radiator ended your mission far from home while some Jugs made it back with entire engine cylinders blown off (never understood how they didn’t throw all the oil out and seize up).
Heard and saw one fly at Oshkosh – you can’t beat the sound of a that huge radial waking up and taking its time before all the cylinders decide they want to play, too.
But then the Mustang is sexier looking and maybe the “better to die than look bad” thing carried over to the plane decision as well.
OldT6Flyer
As an AF guy I hate to say it, but your surmise is all too true. The P-51 was better air-to-air, which is all that counted. Why do you think the big kids in the AF keep trying to make the A-10 go away? In their defense, they probably reasoned that if they had only one dollar, it would buy an A+ air superiority and a B+ ground attack plane in the 51, while would get a B-
air superiority bird to go with an A+ gnd attack capability in the 47, so the 51 was marginally better all round if one were hedging one’s bets on the utility and rapidity of introduction of jets into the inventory–at least that’s the only way I can see to rationalize the decision.
PS: Never discount the “sexy” ego driven part. Tests unequivocally show that the best night cammo paint scheme for all conditions is a dark pinkish gray. The big kids nixed it for the F-117 in lieu of jet black under the philosophy of “real fighter pilots don’t fly pink airplanes!”
Think of it, would rather risk lives than look bad. (The no-nonsense Germans use the paint scheme, however)
P-47 vs. P-51, I think that it had something to do with cost. What I have read was that the 47 cost about as much as three 51’s.
If the AAF wanted a good one they would have got the F4U.
Always wondered how the Brit F4U’s did against the 109’s and the 190’s or if they even had any interaction.
I’ve seen some pictures of P-40s painted pink that were used in N. Africa — blended with the sand I suppose. Didn’t last though….
Is it just me? I’m not seeing the video of the RFS Kuznetsov…
Proof positive that real planes have tailwheels.
Brad, I don’t see a link either.
While the P-47 may not have a price tag three times of the P-51, the latter were far cheaper to produce. The P-38 ran into this issue as well. A magnificent airplane, but much more expensive to build and maintain.
I agree that the Jug was a world-class CAS fighter, but the Mustang was more economical and had greater range. In fact (if memory serves) during the first part of the Korean War certain units had to transition back to the F-51 from the F-80, since they had to fly from Japan at that time.
The Mustang was the sexier ride and the better dogfighter but in the period from April 43 to May 44 it was the P-47 that broke the back of the Luftwaffe in the air-to-air fight. The ranks of the cream of the Luftwaffe pilots were decimated in that time frame. Although there were the Experten around until VE Day the average quality of Luftwaffe pilots dropped considerably after that. IIRC my history. I’d give my eye teeth to get an hour in the air in a Jug.
A neighbor down the street from in-laws flew P-47s in Europe. Was only about 5 ft 6. Had great photo albums, his logbook, scarf, helmet, jacket. Was like one man museum. When he died neither his son nor daughter wanted any of that “old junk” (she is a teacher, and he is a dental hygienist). So they pitched it all. We keep losing those war time memories and lessons learned, someday we will have to re-learn them.
When I was flying T-28s I used to think that was the sweetest sound I’d ever heard, until a Sun N Fun had a 47 crank up and it was heaven.
Fixed the link on the Kuznetsov video, gomen nasai.
You know the Flanker is a big bird when you have to fold the horizontal stabilizer and the tailcone…
G-man/
“Pitched it all?” Didn’t even have the decency to donate it to a museum or air/vets society? What sort of ungrateful, disrespectful philistines are we as a society producing? I’m pretty jaded and cynical, as jaded cynics go, but that anyone would do that to the memory of their Father is beyond belief. That non-relatives might be “anti” all things military or not have any appreciation for history I understand, but…………(walking away, head down, shaking head.)
PS to G-man/
My 1st cousin flew P-47s in WWII. I still have some of his pics from then. Of course with 3 sons they get almost all the memorabilia, but I still have his 1943 cy of his Sr. West Point yr-book, the “Howitzer” that he gave my Mother yrs ago (They were life-long child-hood friends–Mom was 20 yrs younger than rest of her bros & sisters, so they grew up and played together) He retired as a Lt. Gen as Vice Cmdr, PACAF.
You got to admit, that Su-33 is a sweet looking bird. Agree with all your comments re the ski-jump. Must suck to launch attack birds with ordinance hanging and next to no gas. Hope Russki aerial refueling is reliable: “Sorry Comrade, my pumps are not working!”
VX: DewLine says OV-10 wants to make a comeback: BOEING LOOKING TO GET INTO LIGHT-ATTACK PLANE MARKET WITH NEW OV-10
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2009/01/will-the-ov-10-ride-again.html
Interesting newspaper article regarding a series of accidents during CV ops aboard Admiral Kuznetsov:
http://www.kommersant.com/p606360/r_1/Su-33_Landed_in_the_Bottom/
According to this account, the first Su-33 “at sea” accident didn’t occur until 2005 (which seems unlikely on the face of it, even considering the hibernation of the Russian Fleet). The reported cause (mangled by the translation) sounds like a arrestor cable failure coupled with the pilot’s failure to go to mil power on touchdown, but he apparently was later exonerated by an accident board (sounds like he was already in the wires and decelerating when the cable gave).
To give some perspective, he was an O-5 equivalent, “experienced carrier pilot”…making his 42nd trap.
As for inflight refueling, I think the organic capability is based on a buddy store system carried by the Su-33. Not sure about compatibility with land-based tankers.
Spaz/
I’m wondering if this OV-10 thing is the result of secret prodding by the USAF for use as a UAV killer as much as responding to “needs.” Where were they years ago when people were crying for something along those lines? Don’t know if you remember, but Burt Rutan (you know, that stumble-bum of an aircraft designer?) offered the AF a neat little follow-on design–and prototype also IIRC,– to the A-10 gratis, so-to-speak–and the AF officially pretended not to hear….
PS to Spaz/
Many of us in the USAF from the Vietnam era were convinced that the AF hostility to more OV-10s was because it had been “tainted” by the USMC–which also flew the little beast. Although I will say as a FAC aircraft–as opposed to COIN-type offensive ops–for FOBs it has it’s limitations–especially in hands of less than sophisticated maint. capable Allies as it can’t be operated from a lot of really short, dirt strips and now your talking turbo-prop maint. requirements, which steps it up a notch beyond the capabilities of a lot of 3rd-world mechanics or even the US where those guys are always in short supply compared to guys that can maintain something like the standard engined O-1/O-2 type aircraft.
VX: USN VAL-4 ‘Black Ponies’ operated Broncos for ‘brown water fleet’ protection also. RAN ‘EMU’ Huey pilots had some joint ops.
http://www.blackpony.org/
Methinks Boeing is just trying to gin up some business.
And I’ve asked before, what does a Bronco bring to the fight that you don’t get from the Apache?
A little tidbit on P47s and Vietnam. The USAF was looking for a replacement for the On Mark A26k and asked Republic for a production run of Tbolts. Republic regretfully replied;”Sorry, we sent all the dies and patterns to South America.” I heard this back in the 80s when I was working on warbirds, mainly B25s which were an awesome aircraft as well.
Thanks for the link to the Mosquito video, Lex; looks like raw footage from the old movie “633 Squadron”. Makes us old ex-Commonwealth guys long for the days when England designed and built fast and beautiful airplanes all by herself. I’ve only seen Mossies on static display IRL, but would love to hear the song of those two Merlins someday in person.
Lex favors a Jug over a Mosquito? Well of course I thought. Round engine ruggedness vs. water cooled vulnerability.
Then I read about the having P-47 cabin A/C and wondered just for a moment. Lex? A/C?
nah…
fwiw, Dad graduated high school Friday of June ‘42. Enlisted immediately with 3 buddies and was on the train to Great Lakes the next Friday. 2 buddies went Army Air Corp. Never saw either of them after that day. One shot down over France in a P-38. Another survived a combat tour flying P-47’s only to return home and die training pilots.
Larry: #21
That might explain the adoption of the SPAD by the Air Force for the SANDY mission.
I read someplace the P-47 cockpit was much smaller than the P-51 in contrast to the overall size of the beast.
I think you can count the flying survivors on your fingers only while the P-51 number over 150 at least I believe. But they all grow rarer as the men who flew them leave the stage having honored us by their presence.
Merlin, Pratt they both make beautiful music even if we never get to hear a 100 singing in harmony evermore…
T6, If you are big like me you put a Mustang on like a glove, everything is right there, way cool. fuel gauges are through holes in the floor in front of the seat. The plane has that sportscar feel. Jugs and Corsairs are much bigger, except that the pedals in a Jug are close for long legs. You cannot see in front of you until the tail come up on the takeoff roll but they are sweet honest planes to fly.
Larry:
I have a couple hundred hours in the T-6; the closest thing I will ever have to experienceing flying a -51, -47, or F-4U.
I did get checked out in landing from the back seat which I understand was part of the transition for the Corsair with its very blind takeoff sight picture.
Something about those planes and the history they represent that give me a lump in my throat when I think of them – and the deeds their pilots did so long ago now.
While never taking away anything from the pilots who flew them I’va always maintained they couldn’t have been that difficult or they never would have trained the numbers they did to fly them. Certainly not anything like a light plane but, with the proper indoctrination, well within the range of mere mortals. The ACM portion, then as in now I suspect, is where the real difference was revealed. One thing to fly them, another to fight and win with them….
oT6p: And throw in some deck landings for good measure… just to keep the adrenaline up – on a straight deck.
Corsair training movie: http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/wvx/F4UWM100.wvx
Spaz/OldT6Pilot:
The Father of a good friend who recently passed away had flown both the F6F Hellcat and the F4U in WWII in the Pacific for the Navy. He seemed to have otherwise enjoyed his combat experience–at least the flying part, not so much the getting shot at part– so I asked him why he decided to get out after the war. His reply was: “Well, I made 7 carrier night landings and after that experience I decided if I wanted to live a long life I thought I’d probably better get out.” LOL!
XBradTC:
I’ll tell you what the Bronco DOESN’T bring: A bunch of Cav guys strutting around with big ass Civil War-style Cavalry Blue Stetsons on their head, that’s what! (LOL…snicker)
Heh.
Virg. I’m a big Bronco fan (saw one a couple weeks ago just north of San Diego).
But the cost of redesigning and building new Broncs had better bring something new to the fight. On another board, I asked the same question and the answer was basically range and loiter time (over the Apache). But you can almost guarantee that you can FFARP an Apache very close to the battle, which is not true of a Bronc.
The only thing I can think of that a new Bronco could bring to a fight that an Apache can’t is a 500# class weapon. If that’s what we really need, let’s get P-3s certified for GBU-38s and GBU-12/GBU-22’s. That’s all the loiter time you can ask for.
Spaz, thanks for the vid.
Dad tried to loop an F4U over B’ham back in the early 50’s.
Normally, not a problem. He tried it at 30,000ft. Cost him about 20,000 altitude.
XBrad/
A big Broncos fan, eh? I didn’t know you rooted for Denver!
(Couldn’t resist…just…could…not)
http://tinyurl.com/bnomtn
Recent flight in SU SU evoked images of a .45 automatic. No flex, no slop. HARD. LOUD. Purpose built machine with few compromises.
Hours of absorbing first hand accounts of action in WW2:
P-47s at http://tinyurl.com/dnjqep
P-51s at http://tinyurl.com/3cqr65
Spaz/Virgil:
I can’t imagine landing a Corsair on a carrier. You can’t see anything forward in anything approaching a landing attitude I imagine. The last 50 feet or so must have been point and pray as you sure couldn’t see what you were aiming at.
But then I think landing on a carrier is some sort of death wish playing out in real time.
Nothing but admiration for them that have , do, or will but just thinking about doing it at night can pucker me big time.
OT6F,
The usual carrier approach in a Corsair was a curving approach all the way to touchdown, allowing the aviator to see the LSO through the left side of the windscreen.
RAN Sea Fury Golden Oldie: http://tiny.cc/lCAPT
“In the slot, on speed and receiving
minimum ‘off-path’ advisory
signals from ‘Bats’, I approached
the deck with gear, flaps and hook
extended. Approaching the round-
down in a continuously banked
turn, I responded to ‘Bats’ signal
to roll wings level, and with head
leaning to port to maintain visual
contact with ‘Bats’, was ready to
execute the anticipated ‘cut’ signal.
As the deck loomed up I glanced
ahead to ensure that the aircraft
was lined up with the centreline, I
was astounded to see ‘Bats’ give me
the ‘wave-off’ signal, compliance
with which was mandatory.
10 knots above the stall, over the
round-down (or so it felt), wheels
adjudged to be some 10 feet above
the deck and descending. I was
immediately very much aware of the
barrier not far ahead or below, and
of the ship’s island just to starboard
of my path.
Ramming the throttle forward
to the stops, all 2,550 horses were
called upon to do their job — and
do it they did — admirably! However,
at such low airspeed, and no doubt
assisted by my instinctive reaction
to apply control forces to get-the-hell
out of there, I encountered the onset
of the dreaded torque stall (when
engine power, or torque, is such that
it overcomes flight control forces,
and tries to roll the aircraft around
the engine). Not good — not good!
The accompanying illustrative
official photographs obtained by
the unknown ship’s photographer,
who must have had a quick trigger
finger, captured the consequences
in dramatic detail. Note the Aircraft
Handler vacating his normal
position, post-haste!”
Geoff Litchfield
1954, 805 Sqdn, HMAS Sydney