Test Pilot | Where US fighters failed over Europe
Вставка
- Опубліковано 12 тра 2023
- 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
► UA-cam Channel - @ArmouredCarriers
► Website - www.armouredcarriers.com/
► 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.
Mustangs...Spitfires....Thunderbolts....Lightnings ....and ERIC BROWN....who could ask for more? Thank you for a great post!👍👍👍
Uh, accuracy?
Ah, good ol' Eric Brown 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 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 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.
@@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.
I can never get enough of listening to Eric Brown.
What a man.
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.
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.
Material with Eric Brown is always an absolute treasure 👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻
yes
I could listen to Winkle's talk all day
thanks so much for sending Cptn Brown our way again!
he is alive as long as his voice can be heard.
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.
Utterly fascinating! What a fantastic job men like Eric Brown did.
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!
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
Another excellent video, good Ol Winkle Brown. they don't make 'em like that anymore.
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.
ua-cam.com/video/ie3SrjLlcUY/v-deo.html
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 😂
One of the most interesting and educational posts I have seen. Excellent thanks!
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.
Amazing stories from one of the greatest test pilots ever to have lived.
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😂
could listen to this man's stories all day long
Thank you for posting this. It really was a most enjoyable and informative viewing.
Excellent coverage of the subject.
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
Thank you, that was highly educational!
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.
First Class....thank you...always love to hear this man tell it how it was and is...
Utterly incredible. What a man was Captain Brown!
Excellent vid. Well explained.
Many thanks for this!
Great stuff!!
Thank you again.
Wow i learned so much. Brilliant video
This is an excellent teaching aid even now, I learnt a lot.
Thunderbolts and lightenings... (very very frightening things) 🛩️
Gallileo!
Amazing thankyou for sharing
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.
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 !)
Interesting and informative. Excellent photography job enabling viewers to better understand what the orator/pilot Brown was describing. Class A research project !!!
Superb!
Good god! I could listen to this man for hours ... just fascinating.
Brilliant, just wonderful.
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!
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.
every word, absolute gold
Fascinating!
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.
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.
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..
6:48 - I've heard the term "critical Mach number" many times, but this is the first time I've heard it explained.
Oooh! Joy!!
I wonder of (Greetings. This is) Greg has seen this video! Thanks for posting.
When this guy talks airplanes, i listen.
You should read his books.
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.
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.
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.
ua-cam.com/video/ie3SrjLlcUY/v-deo.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:-)
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!
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).
What an amazing man Captain Brown was.we were so lucky to have him at such a time
Always like to hear what "Winkle" Brown has to say.
Incredible
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.
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
Holy smokes! 11:59 gun camera footage of a P-47 being shot down! There is so much German gun camera footage but its so hard to actually come by! Superb video by the way.
Yeah and it's Toni Hackl shooting it down. Look him up.
_'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
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.
He's always got something interesting to say.
Mr Brown, Sir, I salute you.
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.
Love the winkle!!💥💪👊
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
I hear that those planes can be very, very frightening!
They may even have a devil in store for you!
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,
What a great pilot and patriot !
Some years ago in that wonderful mag. Aeroplane Monthly they had an article about two P-47's that had returned to England from a mission . The pilots decided to have a bit of fun , went into a near verticle power dive . Neither pulled out and dove into a farmers small lake . An eyewitness said they hit the water in perfect formation..
One of my best friends elder brother was a Spitfire pilot instructor in Southern Africa . He told my pal that they used to do power dives and the first to pull out was a chicken .
Possibly what the two Americans were playing.
@@jacktattis They were young men , some still boys at heart. This is true . At an advanced training establishment in England the OC sickened by so many throwing their lives away doing low flying . After one such incident he had the dead body spread out on a table , and made all the cadets look at it as they walked past.
The top brass were not impressed , giving the OC a rocket for endangering moral . Their reason was we want pilots to do things without thinking of the dangers , a valid point yes.
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*
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]
He was a very bright brave gentleman.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I have seen a video---maybe one by Greg's Planes and Automobiles--that asserts that Eric Brown erred in his assessment of the P-47. So, by this account, P-47s had a higher critical Mach number, but the controls were very heavy. Eric Brown was a small man who--according to this analysis--did not have the strength to operate the controls at higher Mach numbers.
Take greg's vids with a grain of salt. He never corrects his errors or omissions when confronted.
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.
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.
Interesting that no one ever mentions the dive limit of the outdated Hurricane -- 390 mph IAS. Sad really.
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.
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.
Very interesting! In all the things I've read about it, I've never heard mention of critical Mach being the reason for the P-38's failure in Europe.
🎉I do wonder what the limits were for Japanese fighter aircraft. I do know that fighter tactics changed everywhere.
I was able to find some figures and the P-38 had about a 40kn advantage over the Zero. But that may not be related to critical Mach number.
@@davebell4917 MUCH more that 40 knots, more like 60 or 70.
Yes, critical mach being VERY low is the MAIN problem with P38 and it was caused by the central cockpit with 2 fuselages which sent a blanketing shockwave to its empenage turning P38 into a lawn dart in California in 1940 and No, Farnborough and Eric Brown were not tasked to figure this out. It was already known problem and why it had not gone into mass production even though it flew in 1939 as the fastest straight line aircraft in the world. P38 also had other problems, Roll rate sucked for instance, just like all 2 engined fighters, and initially had turbocharger problems. It is why it was never upgraded much.
Robin Olds stated in talks that it nearly killed him in mid 1944. It was a big problem on both the P-38 and the P-47.
Mach 9.2....WOW😌😌😌
I knew about the Lightning, but was surprised to hear about the P-47. Always thought it was just about the ultimate diver of the war - and that the Spitfire generally could not keep up with the Bf 109 or Fw 190 in a dive.
It depends on the altitude. Air pressure (and density and temperature) has a variety of effects on control surfaces at different altitudes.
So, yes, the P-47 was a great diver - in air densities and temperatures that didn't exceed its critical Mach.
The difference was that the Spitfire, with a poorer diver performance, could sustain its performance at an altitude the P-47 could not.
But, of course, the Spitfire didn't have the range to be an escort anyway. Thus the reason why the Mustang owned the role in the final year of the war.
@@ArmouredCarriers So, if I understand this correctly:
The P-47 was only a good diver at lower altitudes.
The Spitfire was regarded as a rather poor diver because it couldn't keep up with German fighters in the initial phase of the dive.
@@TTTT-oc4eb It was "only" bad at the top of the altitude band - above the B-17s, diving down to defend them from above 30,000ft in the thin cold atmosphere. In the bulk of combat altitudes - as Brown explains - it was very good. Especially low.
He is talking about a very specific mission profile. One of many. It's why there is no such thing as an "all things for all people" fighter aircraft.
Once early problems with carburettors and negative G in Spitfires were solved I believe they had a good dive capability.
This phenomenon on early Spitfires and Hurricanes was due to the fuel to the float in the carburettor causing a fuel starvation. The Germans had fuel injected engines. The fault was rectified in later gens of Merlins and Griffons. Subsequently the Spitfire became an excellent diver
Greg should watch this
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.
Many thanks for this - would love to hear Eric’s and other pilot’s thoughts on the Sea Fury and it’s performance.
Did he ever fly it? And this video... is he actually going to give real data/thoughts instead of the fabricated embellished BS story? Pretty much everything EB said in this video is at least a grey or black lie other than the P38 sucked.
Ahhh, an unknown expert! Please, tell us more about Grey and black lies and other “Fabricated embellished BS?” Clearly somebodies sense of national pride has been affronted!🤣
Yes, he has a report on the Sea Fury in one of his books, I can't remember which one. :-)
W8stral:- please on pass your flying credentials. No offence but I’ll take Winkle’s evaluation over yours in a heartbeat. Did he take exception to your P47. Which btw proved to be a very good aircraft in its preferred operational parameters
@@jamescollier847 Sounds just like most US fan boys who are notorious for their arrogance and dogmatic attitude.
the guy in the mustang his 706 MPH in that dive,,=the breakup speed for theat plane
Eric Brown - they don't make them like this anymore !
Very nice enemy pilot!