PDA

View Full Version : Spitfire LF V



No41Sqn_Banks
04-03-2008, 03:30 AM
We all know that the Spitfire LF V was used well into 1944. It's obviously that there was a lack of Merlin 66 as they would have otherwise converted them to Spitfire LF IX, because the airframe was almost identical.

Of course there has much changed since 1941 when the Spitfire F V was introduced: A different supercharger configuration with good low altitude performance, higher boost limit, more cannon ammunition.
But even with that changes it wasn't a comparable fighter against the Luftwaffen fighters. It could only operate effectivly below 10,000 feet, above that it's performance fell considerably. So they were obviously not used as fighters or interceptors.


So what was the point about the Spitfire LF V? What was it used for?
They were able to carry a 500lb bomb under the fuselage, so propably they were used mainly as fighter bombers and for armed reconnaissance?

Are there any facts about that available?

No41Sqn_Banks
04-03-2008, 03:30 AM
We all know that the Spitfire LF V was used well into 1944. It's obviously that there was a lack of Merlin 66 as they would have otherwise converted them to Spitfire LF IX, because the airframe was almost identical.

Of course there has much changed since 1941 when the Spitfire F V was introduced: A different supercharger configuration with good low altitude performance, higher boost limit, more cannon ammunition.
But even with that changes it wasn't a comparable fighter against the Luftwaffen fighters. It could only operate effectivly below 10,000 feet, above that it's performance fell considerably. So they were obviously not used as fighters or interceptors.


So what was the point about the Spitfire LF V? What was it used for?
They were able to carry a 500lb bomb under the fuselage, so propably they were used mainly as fighter bombers and for armed reconnaissance?

Are there any facts about that available?

stathem
04-03-2008, 03:43 AM
Certainly on D-Day some LF Vs were in use as arty spotters for the Navy - as were Navy Seafires which were very similar.

The Navy Seafires at this point however had gyro gunsights, G-suits (apparantly ideal for the task of spotting since the job entailed spending a lot of time in relatively high G turns at speed) and no outer brownings fitted. Couldn't speak for whether the Vs in the same job had these features.

Oh yeah - and the Seafires retained the gunsights and G-suits when they went east - not that you'll find that in game.

BGs_Ricky
04-03-2008, 04:14 AM
I think also that many Spitfire squadrons were mainly used as fighter-bombers from D-Day on.

WOLFMondo
04-03-2008, 04:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by No41Sqn_Banks:

So what was the point about the Spitfire LF V? What was it used for? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lots of them were used as tactical fighters and ground pounders with the 2nd TAF. Theres probably a few reasons why they were never upgraded with Merlin 66's, other than some structural changes to the aircraft most V's were quite old by that point. Not much point putting a new engine on an aircraft thats not long for the scrap heap.

No41Sqn_Banks
04-03-2008, 04:52 AM
Really good point. If they were fighter bombers, they would be listed in the 2nd TAF.

But I doubt that there were many Spitfire V in 2nd TAF in 1944.

http://www.41squadron.org/res/2nd%20TAF%20structure%20November%201943.html

In November 1943 there were 6 Squadrons (mainly Polish and Czech) Spitfire V and as far as I can remember these Squadrons changed shortly after that to Spitfire IX.

I've read a story of a Spitfire pilot in Italy that first flew Spitfire V as fighter bomber and than changed to Spitfire IX in the same role.

M_Gunz
04-03-2008, 05:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by No41Sqn_Banks:
So what was the point about the Spitfire LF V? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Getting a lot more power out of a Spit V at less altitude.
The difference is in supercharger and IIRC it uses less engine power at lower alts than a high
alt supercharger but has lower full throttle height. IIRC the charger had a smaller diameter
impeller.

tomtheyak
04-03-2008, 05:53 AM
The LF VB/C was not used by the 2nd TAF operationally - by DDay the only MkVs on roster in the RAF were serving in Air Defence Great Britain, including 402 Sqn, 64 Sqn and a number of Polish units.

Make no mistake, they were not second line a/c though more accurately perhaps 'B' team. Correct that yes they gave there best below 10,000 feet but given the nature of hit & run raids being the primary concern in air attack against the UK that is no matter. They also did many low level patrols over the D-Day beaches again in the realm below 10,000 feet.

Most sources say that these late Mk vs were preety quick at low level and were close if not on a par with the low level speeds of the 190 and 109.

OMK_Hand
04-03-2008, 07:27 AM
Quote from 'Spitfire Mk.V in action - RAF operations in northern Europe' by Peter Caygill.

From Chapter 8 - A present from the enemy. Following extensive testing of the FW 190 A3 thoughtfully provided by the disorientated Oberleutnant Arnim Faber in the last months of 1942, "The performance that was needed from the Spitfire V for it to be able to compete on more or less equal terms was now known."

The Spitfire LFVb was tested in early January 1943. Full throttle height was a relatively low 5,900', and there was a dramatic fall-off in performance above 12,000'.

"From the tests carried out it was clear that the modified Spitfire V would be able to hold its own against the opposition for the foreseeable future, but only as long as it was operated within its restricted height band. With the spitfire IX fulfilling the classic air superiority role, Mark V pilots would have to be content with the close escort of medium bombers, variety being added by ground attack work, shipping reconnaissance sorties and occasional offensive sweeps. Despite such limited scope there would still be plenty of opportunities for them to achieve glory."

It's a good read.

OMK_Hand
04-03-2008, 07:54 AM
Regarding D-day it says here:
"The honour of being the first RAF fighter unit over Normandy (on 6th June) fell to 611 Squadron." Followed by 64 and 234 Squadrons.

Flight Lieutenant Tony Cooper of 64 Squadron was among the first over the Utah beachhead. From his logbook:
"Navy shelling coast defences - First landing made at 0620 hrs. Nearly shot down by Thunderbolt, Spitfire in front actually was. Another Spit hit by naval shell and blew up.'

"Throughout the day the Deanland wing maintained round the clock cover."

Regarding effective altitude, apparently the clipped wing gave an increase in top speed of 5 mph at all heights up to 10,000'.
The changed impeller gave an overall performance increase on both clipped and full wing types up to 12,000'.

M_Gunz
04-03-2008, 01:42 PM
That model Spit would probably have met with higher regard in Russia in 1943.

Mr_Nakajima
04-03-2008, 02:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by No41Sqn_Banks:
Really good point. If they were fighter bombers, they would be listed in the 2nd TAF.

But I doubt that there were many Spitfire V in 2nd TAF in 1944.

http://www.41squadron.org/res/2nd%20TAF%20structure%20November%201943.html

In November 1943 there were 6 Squadrons (mainly Polish and Czech) Spitfire V and as far as I can remember these Squadrons changed shortly after that to Spitfire IX.

I've read a story of a Spitfire pilot in Italy that first flew Spitfire V as fighter bomber and than changed to Spitfire IX in the same role. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

From quickly adding up the figures in Christopher Shore's ˜2nd Tactical Air Force' volume 1 for 5 June 1944 the Sptifire fighter squadrons figures were:

2 TAF
Spitfire V – 7 squadrons in the air spotting pool (i.e. spotters for naval gunfire). Some of these were FAA and jointly operated Spitfire V and Seafires, one was USN.
Spitfire IX – 28 squadrons
Spitfire VII – 1 squadron
Spitfire XIV – 2 squadrons

Air Defence of Great Britain:
Spitfire V – 5 squadrons and 3 air-sea rescue.
Spitfire IX – 11 squadrons
Spitfire XIV – 1 squadron

Richardsen
04-03-2008, 03:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by No41Sqn_Banks:

So what was the point about the Spitfire LF V? What was it used for? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lots of them were used as tactical fighters and ground pounders with the 2nd TAF. Theres probably a few reasons why they were never upgraded with Merlin 66's, other than some structural changes to the aircraft most V's were quite old by that point. Not much point putting a new engine on an aircraft thats not long for the scrap heap. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A Merlin 66 wouldn't fit in a MK V!
The 66 have a two stage blower which is quite a bit longer than the single one on the 40 and 50 series of merlin.
If you put a 66 in a V, you will have a MK IX.

The latest LF V's had a merlin 50 or 55. a four blade prop and 6 exhaust stacks each side.
They where more manoverable, climbed better, had better acelration and generaly faster than the LF IX at low altitudes!
But higher up it performed even more bad the the 1941 MK V. So pilots in 44-45 preffered the IX. VIII and XIV.

VW-IceFire
04-03-2008, 04:49 PM
Richardsen...might be misunderstanding you a bit but a Mark V with a Merlin 66 is a Mark IX. So it does indeed fit quite nicely. Needs a new cowling and changes to the radiators (probably some other internal changes) but basically the same airframe.

Probably preaching to the converted here but the IX was meant as a temporary stop gap. Its ironic that so many WWII fighters meant as stop gaps ended up being one of the major production versions. Some Mark Vs were converted to IX standard and then many more IXs were built from the ground up. The Mark VIII was originally meant to be the replacement type for the Mark V...but with the success of the IX the VIII was...for whatever reason...sent largely to North Africa and Burma/India.

What we don't have in-game are multiple years of the Mark V. The 1944 Mark Vs would, as Richardsen points out, be better performers sometimes sporting revised exhaust stacks, four blade propeller, and so forth. By 1943 and into 1944 they were mostly used as bomb trucks (allot of No-Ball attacks against V-1 sites) and for low level ops where the LF V and LF IX weren't that different in performance.

I wonder how much of the Mark Vs withdrawal from service had to do with worn airframes. These would be some seriously beat up aircraft by this point.

Xiolablu3
04-03-2008, 05:42 PM
The Mark VIII was sent to the Med/North Africa where the ranbge could be put to good use.

650 miles on internal fuel only. Over 1000 with drop tanks.


The MkIX's fuel was good enough for the 20 mile wide Channel into German occupied Farnce and up to the German border.

The fact that all the MkVIII's were sent abroad shows really that longer range was not really needed in Western Europe until the Americans needed a Daylight Bomber Escort for the Bombers flying from England.


If it had been a problem the RAF would surely have kept some MkVIII's at home.


By the way, did the MkXIV's have the SPitfire VIII airframe with the longer range?

ImpStarDuece
04-03-2008, 06:25 PM
All Mk XIVs had the additional wing tanks of the Mk VII/VIII, giving about 110, 120, 126 or 128 imperial gallons (sources vary).

However, the Griffon engine had considerably greater consumption than the Merlin, about 25% more. This meant that its flight endurance was actually a little less than the Mk IX. However, as the Mk XIV cruised at a higher speed than the Mk IX, its range about equal with the MK IX.

However, having more than 100 gal internally, it could easily use the larger 90 gal slipper tank, which, theoretically, means that it could of had longer range than the Mk IX, which was restricted to using the 45 or (rare) 50 imp gal slipper tank, as it only had 85 gal in two front tanks, at least until late in the war, when rear-fuselage tanks began to be fitted.

ADFU trials indicate that the Mk XIV's range, when fitted with a 90 gal long range tanks, was about 1/2 that of a Mustang III's, when fitted with two 62.5 gal wing tanks.

M_Gunz
04-03-2008, 06:45 PM
Was or was not the 66 originally a bomber engine?

VW-IceFire
04-03-2008, 07:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
By the way, did the MkXIV's have the SPitfire VIII airframe with the longer range? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
First XIV was a modified Mark VIII. The VIII airframe was somewhat redesigned and strengthened. The VII and VIII I think are the first serious attempts by Supermarine to change the Spitfire's original design in some significant way. Everything prior was a close derivative of the Mark I.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Was or was not the 66 originally a bomber engine? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I've never heard that before. The 66 is a re-geared 61 which was part of the Merlin 60 prototype engine itself being a revised version of the previous types used in the Spitfire. At least to my knowledge...admittedly I haven't done all of the engine research or at least don't remember it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Where did the bomber engine come from? Curious!

stathem
04-04-2008, 01:07 AM
Yes, my faded memory seems to recall something along the lines of the 60-series Merlin being originally designed/intended for a high altitude bomber - a version of the Wellington perhaps? Although that doesn't quite match, the Wellington having radials and all...

Will have to look it up. Might be in Alfred Prices book.

stathem
04-04-2008, 01:25 AM
There you go.

Quick google reveals this page (http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avp512.html).

Designed for the Wellington VI.

Richardsen
04-04-2008, 01:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Richardsen...might be misunderstanding you a bit but a Mark V with a Merlin 66 is a Mark IX. So it does indeed fit quite nicely. Needs a new cowling and changes to the radiators (probably some other internal changes) but basically the same airframe.

Probably preaching to the converted here but the IX was meant as a temporary stop gap. Its ironic that so many WWII fighters meant as stop gaps ended up being one of the major production versions. Some Mark Vs were converted to IX standard and then many more IXs were built from the ground up. The Mark VIII was originally meant to be the replacement type for the Mark V...but with the success of the IX the VIII was...for whatever reason...sent largely to North Africa and Burma/India.

What we don't have in-game are multiple years of the Mark V. The 1944 Mark Vs would, as Richardsen points out, be better performers sometimes sporting revised exhaust stacks, four blade propeller, and so forth. By 1943 and into 1944 they were mostly used as bomb trucks (allot of No-Ball attacks against V-1 sites) and for low level ops where the LF V and LF IX weren't that different in performance.

I wonder how much of the Mark Vs withdrawal from service had to do with worn airframes. These would be some seriously beat up aircraft by this point. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The IX needed a longer nose to have big enough space for a 66 engine.
The 2 stage blower takes alot more space!

The MK V is shorter and significantly lighter than the IX (400 hundred kilos lighter)

M_Gunz
04-04-2008, 03:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Where did the bomber engine come from? Curious! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A questionable History Channel blurb about the engine for the Spit IX being what a bomber,
might have been the Lancaster, was using. In the same segment they mentioned that the Doras
were given high-alt bomber engines and how both the 190D's and Spit IX's had longer noses
because of the longer supercharged bomber engines and both were big successes.

But since it's History Channel I can't say if it's true or not.

No41Sqn_Banks
04-04-2008, 04:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Richardsen:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Richardsen...might be misunderstanding you a bit but a Mark V with a Merlin 66 is a Mark IX. So it does indeed fit quite nicely. Needs a new cowling and changes to the radiators (probably some other internal changes) but basically the same airframe.

Probably preaching to the converted here but the IX was meant as a temporary stop gap. Its ironic that so many WWII fighters meant as stop gaps ended up being one of the major production versions. Some Mark Vs were converted to IX standard and then many more IXs were built from the ground up. The Mark VIII was originally meant to be the replacement type for the Mark V...but with the success of the IX the VIII was...for whatever reason...sent largely to North Africa and Burma/India.

What we don't have in-game are multiple years of the Mark V. The 1944 Mark Vs would, as Richardsen points out, be better performers sometimes sporting revised exhaust stacks, four blade propeller, and so forth. By 1943 and into 1944 they were mostly used as bomb trucks (allot of No-Ball attacks against V-1 sites) and for low level ops where the LF V and LF IX weren't that different in performance.

I wonder how much of the Mark Vs withdrawal from service had to do with worn airframes. These would be some seriously beat up aircraft by this point. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The IX needed a longer nose to have big enough space for a 66 engine.
The 2 stage blower takes alot more space!

The MK V is shorter and significantly lighter than the IX (400 hundred kilos lighter) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes that is all correct, but if you take a Spitfire V, cut off everything in front of the cockpit (which is basicly only the engine) and place a Merlin 66 instead of the Merlin 45 you have a Spitfire IX. Of course you need also to modify the radiator and so on.

But the airframe (fuselage, tail, wings, cockpit) is basicly the same.

It's defintly possible to convert a Spitfire V into a Spitfire IX.

stathem
04-04-2008, 04:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by No41Sqn_Banks:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Richardsen:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Richardsen...might be misunderstanding you a bit but a Mark V with a Merlin 66 is a Mark IX. So it does indeed fit quite nicely. Needs a new cowling and changes to the radiators (probably some other internal changes) but basically the same airframe.

Probably preaching to the converted here but the IX was meant as a temporary stop gap. Its ironic that so many WWII fighters meant as stop gaps ended up being one of the major production versions. Some Mark Vs were converted to IX standard and then many more IXs were built from the ground up. The Mark VIII was originally meant to be the replacement type for the Mark V...but with the success of the IX the VIII was...for whatever reason...sent largely to North Africa and Burma/India.

What we don't have in-game are multiple years of the Mark V. The 1944 Mark Vs would, as Richardsen points out, be better performers sometimes sporting revised exhaust stacks, four blade propeller, and so forth. By 1943 and into 1944 they were mostly used as bomb trucks (allot of No-Ball attacks against V-1 sites) and for low level ops where the LF V and LF IX weren't that different in performance.

I wonder how much of the Mark Vs withdrawal from service had to do with worn airframes. These would be some seriously beat up aircraft by this point. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The IX needed a longer nose to have big enough space for a 66 engine.
The 2 stage blower takes alot more space!

The MK V is shorter and significantly lighter than the IX (400 hundred kilos lighter) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes that is all correct, but if you take a Spitfire V, cut off everything in front of the cockpit (which is basicly only the engine) and place a Merlin 66 instead of the Merlin 45 you have a Spitfire IX. Of course you need also to modify the radiator and so on.

But the airframe (fuselage, tail, wings, cockpit) is basicly the same.

It's defintly possible to convert a Spitfire V into a Spitfire IX. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In fact JL165, one of the test hacks for the +25lb boost IX conversions on which 'our' +25lb variant is based, started life as a MkV.

Richardsen
04-04-2008, 06:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by No41Sqn_Banks:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Richardsen:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Richardsen...might be misunderstanding you a bit but a Mark V with a Merlin 66 is a Mark IX. So it does indeed fit quite nicely. Needs a new cowling and changes to the radiators (probably some other internal changes) but basically the same airframe.

Probably preaching to the converted here but the IX was meant as a temporary stop gap. Its ironic that so many WWII fighters meant as stop gaps ended up being one of the major production versions. Some Mark Vs were converted to IX standard and then many more IXs were built from the ground up. The Mark VIII was originally meant to be the replacement type for the Mark V...but with the success of the IX the VIII was...for whatever reason...sent largely to North Africa and Burma/India.

What we don't have in-game are multiple years of the Mark V. The 1944 Mark Vs would, as Richardsen points out, be better performers sometimes sporting revised exhaust stacks, four blade propeller, and so forth. By 1943 and into 1944 they were mostly used as bomb trucks (allot of No-Ball attacks against V-1 sites) and for low level ops where the LF V and LF IX weren't that different in performance.

I wonder how much of the Mark Vs withdrawal from service had to do with worn airframes. These would be some seriously beat up aircraft by this point. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The IX needed a longer nose to have big enough space for a 66 engine.
The 2 stage blower takes alot more space!

The MK V is shorter and significantly lighter than the IX (400 hundred kilos lighter) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes that is all correct, but if you take a Spitfire V, cut off everything in front of the cockpit (which is basicly only the engine) and place a Merlin 66 instead of the Merlin 45 you have a Spitfire IX. Of course you need also to modify the radiator and so on.

But the airframe (fuselage, tail, wings, cockpit) is basicly the same.

It's defintly possible to convert a Spitfire V into a Spitfire IX. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes it's possible to convert a V into a IX.
It would need a new engine cowling, modified the radiators an so on... The tail section of the IX is the same as a V.

Today most V's and IX's runs with very much the same hp output. I talked to a BBMF pilot and he said that the AB910 (mk Vb) where nicest spit to fly. Very manoverable and exelent climb rate.

totalspoon
04-04-2008, 07:25 AM
Stathem Said...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Navy Seafires at this point however had gyro gunsights, G-suits (apparantly ideal for the task of spotting since the job entailed spending a lot of time in relatively high G turns at speed) and no outer brownings fitted. Couldn't speak for whether the Vs in the same job had these features. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Were RAF squadrons ever issued G-Suits? Did all RN flyers wear them?

Spoon

stathem
04-04-2008, 07:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by totalspoon:
Stathem Said...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Navy Seafires at this point however had gyro gunsights, G-suits (apparantly ideal for the task of spotting since the job entailed spending a lot of time in relatively high G turns at speed) and no outer brownings fitted. Couldn't speak for whether the Vs in the same job had these features. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Were RAF squadrons ever issued G-Suits? Did all RN flyers wear them?

Spoon </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I can only vouch for the Seafires, since the book (They gave me a Seafire by R.M. Crosley) does not mention the Corsair or Hellcats specifically having them. No reason to suspect not - but the wording does not make it clear.

On the RAF pilots he has something to say - that the suits were made available to the RAf but (at D-Day) were not taken up. Crosley maintains that this was becuse the suits were trialled by the RAF pilots in the high altitude role where the G-forces experienced are lower and were consequently disliked.

The 'official' reason given (why the RN took them up but not the RAF) was that the RAF pilots being being based amoungst the general populace feared that the suits detracted from their 'heroic' fighter pilot image - not an issue with the more tightly knit and separated (by being on carriers) FAA squadrons.

Iirc he goes on to state that they were taken up by the RAF more in the 2nd TAF for ground attack work later in the war where they proved invaluable - but by this point Crosley had set off for the Far East.

I'll dig put the book later when I get home to check - but that's how I remember it.

M_Gunz
04-04-2008, 08:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stathem:
The Navy Seafires at this point however had gyro gunsights, G-suits (apparantly ideal for the task of spotting since the job entailed spending a lot of time in relatively high G turns at speed) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I missed this first time around, must have had my nonsense filter working.
NO, you don't spot arty while making high-G turns!

Please post a quote.

Daiichidoku
04-04-2008, 09:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
The Mark VIII was sent to the Med/North Africa where the ranbge could be put to good use.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

also PTO

i believe the reason was mainly that VIIIs had internal, factory equipped trop filters



slighbtly OT, but i read in bill olmstead's book "blue skies", while in north africa, he was frustrated that after recieving his own new mk IX, it was propmtly taken by higher-ups

so he had his crew chief take his mkV and remove the 303s, armour plate, stripped off all the paint possible, and even removed the canopy

B.O. laimed in his book that his "SuperV" would handliy outclimb and accelerate any mk IX

also an OT excerpt from his book "blue skies"

"Tampax Squadron
... "My first view of the tiny island of Malta is still a vivid memory. Through the mid-morning haze, it looked like a small golden leaf floating on the sea. I thought it looked ridiculously small, measuring roughly seven miles by fourteen miles, and our new airdrome, Takali, stood out as obvious and exposed.
"Gonda control," called Duke (Arthur), "Tampax squadron requesting landing instructions."
The reply came from Malta control: "Say again."
Duke returned, "Tampax leader requesting landing permission."
Gonda control again asked, "Say again, please. What call sign?"
Duke, now impatient, "Tampax leader."
"Please repeat call sign," intoned Gonda control.
By now Duke was obviously exasperated and certainly still seething over the loss of Cam.[this was a sqd pilot who unexplainedly went into the drink and died on this flight] He roared into the radio, "Tampax leader. Tampax! Tampax! The stuff you shove up your snatch."
I could visualize the horror, the giggles, and the consternation that must have swept through the operations room. After another delay we finally received a polite and quiet reply instructing us to land at Takali airfield."

http://www.acesofww2.com/Canada/aces/olmsted.htm

stathem
04-04-2008, 12:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stathem:
The Navy Seafires at this point however had gyro gunsights, G-suits (apparantly ideal for the task of spotting since the job entailed spending a lot of time in relatively high G turns at speed) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I missed this first time around, must have had my nonsense filter working.
NO, you don't spot arty while making high-G turns!

Please post a quote. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sh*t Max, didn't realise you were a experienced WW2 artillery spotter. Thanks for doubting my honesty.

Ok despite being really busy, here's some quotes. (from the same book as referenced elsewhere in my posts)

Chapter 15 Lee on Solent June 1944

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
The final improvement to 3 Wing's arrangements organised for us by Buster was the Franks Flying suit. This was an anti-G suit. It was designed to prevent blacking out in steep turns. As we should have to maintain high speed in case we were jumped over the enemy infested beachhead while spotting, and would also have to maintain an almost continuous steep turn to see the ground, the relief that the suit would give us would be most welcome. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Appendix 9 - The Franks Flying Suit.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
..and between them they arranged for the suit to be given to us for a job for which it was admirably suited - bombardment spotting. With up to six hours a day for a week or more, at high IAS and in continuos steep turns, we should need it's protection if we were to last the course. There was never any liklehood that it would be required to prevent blacking out in these turns, of course, for it was not possible to maintain enough 'G' in a tunr - without diving - in the Seafire/Spitfire (or any other fighter of that time) for more than a few seconds. It would, however nullify the effects of up to four 'G' for two or three hours a day. It would also enable us to dive and pull away at maximum 'G' if we were jumped by Fws or Me109s... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


If I get time later I'll post some more from this book.

You're welcome http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Wildnoob
04-04-2008, 12:32 PM
folks, I don't read the entery topic, but have a doubth about the Spitfire in the sim.

why the late versions witch were equiped with gyro gunsigths don't have this sigth ?

I miss the name of the britsh devolped, just know it was licenced built in the US has K-14.

also, the G4M don't have the torpedo gunsigth. for attacking moved ships would be very useful.

I know the devolped of IL2 is vitually complet, but if someone could tell me why these sigths where not in the sim I'll express my gratitude, in fact I express my gratitude anyway.

OMK_Hand
04-04-2008, 12:42 PM
"Over the years the Spitfire V has been subjected to a fair amount of adverse comment, particularly regarding its performance deficiency when compared with the FW190. Fighter command's losses, especially in 1942 were extremely serious, but it would be wrong to assume that this situation was brought about entirely by the weakness of the Mk.V ... ... By operating over enemy territory the initiative was often handed to the Luftwaffe ... ... With height advantage they were able to dictate terms and only attacked if the odds were heavily stacked in their favour ... Occasionally engagements would take place between individual aircraft where there was no advantage either way. Under such circumstances a well-flown Spitfire V was still a worthy opponent, and many FW190 pilots paid the ultimate price when they attempted to mix it in one-to-one combat."

Flight Lieutenant Clive Gosling - Supermarine test pilot:

"The Mark V to me seemed underpowered; indeed, it was not until the airframe was fitted with the Merlin 61 that the full potential of the aircraft appeared to be realised. The LFV was a little 'hot rod', it was very nimble and light, and with an exhilarating low-level performance."

Xiolablu3
04-04-2008, 01:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Wildnoob:
folks, I don't read the entery topic, but have a doubth about the Spitfire in the sim.

why the late versions witch were equiped with gyro gunsigths don't have this sigth ?

I miss the name of the britsh devolped, just know it was licenced built in the US has K-14.

also, the G4M don't have the torpedo gunsigth. for attacking moved ships would be very useful.

I know the devolped of IL2 is vitually complet, but if someone could tell me why these sigths where not in the sim I'll express my gratitude, in fact I express my gratitude anyway. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes the American K14 is a license build British Gyro gunsight, howevr I think the USA used them as standard and in greater numbers than the British?

I am not certain about this however, maybe someone with more knowledge can commet?

OMK_Hand
04-04-2008, 02:23 PM
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/spitfire-lf-m...yro-sight-10871.html (http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/spitfire-lf-mk-ixc-mkii-gyro-sight-10871.html)

"The RAE (Royal Aircraft Establishment) was still gleaning data from gun camera films on GM2 (MKII gyro computing gunsight) equipped Spitfires of all Marques as late as May 1945. I would be surprised if all Spitfires came equipped with a CGS sight. In fact, that would be a bad move according to the factual data amassed by the RAE.

A training program was enacted by the RAF in the last six months of the war to bring the CGS lethality up and over the fixed projector sights lethality."

http://www.btinternet.com/~lee_mail/spitfire3.html (http://www.btinternet.com/%7Elee_mail/spitfire3.html)

Spitfire Mk XIV - "This was also the first Spitfire variant to carry the gyro gunsight."

I don't have more knowledge, but I can Google http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

No41Sqn_Banks
04-04-2008, 02:54 PM
All right I just had a look at Il-2 compare.

The Spitfire LF V is only 20 mph slower at low altitude than the Spitfire LF IX.

Now if you compare this with a Spitfire F IX, which had lower boost than the LF IX, I would expect that the Spitfire LF V is more then comparable with that mark.

Xiolablu3
04-04-2008, 02:55 PM
Johnnie Johnson had the option of a Gyro Gunsight in his MkIX Spitfire in 1944, but didnt want it as he found he had his head 'stuck in the office' at vital times when he should be paying more attention to other things.

This refers to the fact that he was calculating wingspans etc when he should just be shooting and checking his tail.

He said in his book that many of his fellow pilots put the Gyro to excellent use.

I bet they were very useful for pilots who werent a very good shot.


The US pilots who used the American version rated it extremely highly, just read the WW2 combat reports from the P51's which had it fitted. Nothing but praise for the Gyro gunsight.


US pilots comments on the Gyro gunsight :-

'I believe this sight would improve gunnery at least 100 per cent. Shooting is at the moment for most pilots purely guesswork. A pilot cannot guess with this sight, due to this I am sure that at least the lower bracket of pilots (75 per cent) will improve their shooting to the level of the best gunnery shots now, and the best ones can do even better. It is easy to handle, and there is no situaiton it cannot handle as well as the GM2, and in most cases (90 per cent) it will do better.

The second pilot reported

Speaking from the point of view of the day fighter, I would say that the Mk IID gyro gunsight is definitely the answer to our problem with deflection shooting. We are proving daily that the average pilot cannot do deflection shooting, even with small angles, accurately with a fixed sight. I think that the sight should be put into produciton immediately and fighter squadrons equipped with them as soon as possible. '

M_Gunz
04-04-2008, 03:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stathem:
Sh*t Max, didn't realise you were a experienced WW2 artillery spotter. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, I was an artillery spotter decades later and it's hard enough to keep directions right when
you're standing still. But those guys did it the hard way it seems! Those planes were good for
almost 4 G's continuous, makes me wonder how the guys in the Piper Cubs managed to do the job
at all without getting blown out of the air. You figure one of those could maintain 2 G's?

Xiolablu3
04-04-2008, 03:15 PM
Excellent read on the Gyro Gunsight development and use in the RAF and the practically identical US version, the K14 :-

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?p=160621&sid...923c2bb9a94c598a6ff1 (http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?p=160621&sid=51c60b7d43f1923c2bb9a94c598a6ff1)

VW-IceFire
04-04-2008, 03:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Wildnoob:
folks, I don't read the entery topic, but have a doubth about the Spitfire in the sim.

why the late versions witch were equiped with gyro gunsigths don't have this sigth ?

I miss the name of the britsh devolped, just know it was licenced built in the US has K-14.

also, the G4M don't have the torpedo gunsigth. for attacking moved ships would be very useful.

I know the devolped of IL2 is vitually complet, but if someone could tell me why these sigths where not in the sim I'll express my gratitude, in fact I express my gratitude anyway. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
They Mark II GGS gyroscopic gunsight wasn't really well into use until later in 1944 and more common in 1945. That said I don't think every Spitfire IX (and up) was equipped...mostly anything new that was from the factory.

Why don't we have the Mark II GGS? It wasn't modeled and getting the reference materials on the sight was difficult. The Spitfire XIV project which would have brought a XIV to the sim had the time/modeler/etc. worked out had a in-progress cockpit with a gyrosight but it was never completed.

You also have to look at the sim in context. When we got the Spitfires we apparently got the lend lease Russian (VVS) Spitfires. Yes they used relatively large numbers of Mark Vs in some frontline operations in the Kuban area and the IXs were used for PVO city defense/bomber interception missions.

A number of other types are missing the K-14 sight as well such as the P-38L Late and the P-47D Late.

Kettenhunde
04-04-2008, 04:12 PM
An even better read that just deals in factual results without the emotional embellishment:

http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/2127/cgssightlethalitycomparjj8.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

RAF flying experience:

http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/9228/flyinghourswh7.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

The USAAF really benefited from CGS technology because of the amount of training they received on it and experience flying. The Luftwaffe and the RAF did not see the same gains from CGS technology as their pilots were not as experienced and could not realize its full potential.

All the best,

Crumpp

Xiolablu3
04-04-2008, 04:30 PM
I dont understand the 'emotional' part of your post Crumpp.

What are you referring too?

Are you imagining things again? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif


The USAAF really benefited from CGS technology because of the amount of training they received on it and experience flying. The Luftwaffe and the RAF did not see the same gains from CGS technology as their pilots were not as experienced and could not realize its full potential.'

Where is your evidence for the above quote? I dont see any US or German figures as you have for the RAF.

Xiolablu3
04-04-2008, 04:37 PM
No emotion here http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif, just combat reports from US pilots using the K14 Gyro :-


"I used the K-14 Gyro Gunsight and I'm sure it was a definite advantage in the combat."
Capt. John C. Fitch, 18 November 1944, 4th FG "I used the K-14 Gyro Gun Sight and believe it is superior to the fixed sight."
Capt. William J. O'Donnell, 18 December 1944, 4th FG "I used the K-14 sight and found it to be excellent for deflection shooting and superior to the reflector sight."
1st Lt. George C. Smith, 27 September 1944, 4th FG "The K-14 sight was very helpful. I don't think I could have hit the 190 without it."
Capt. Richard P. Gatterdam, 2 November 1944, 20th FG "I wish to express my unqualified recommendation of the K-14 sight which I used in getting this destroyed."
Lt. Col. John L Mc Ginn, 11 September 1944, 55th FG
1st Lt. Edward H. Beavers, 23 September 1944, 339th FG "The K-14 sight, which I used for the first time, is an excellent instrument and is far superior to our old sight."
Capt.Donald W. Johnson, 26 November 1944, 339th FG Three (3) Fw 190's destroyed. "All my shooting was done at 300 yards or less and with the K-14 sight it was easy."
1st Lt. George T. Rich, 18 November 1944, 339th FG "We quickly outclimbed the e/a and, having a K-14 gunsight, I opened up at around 600 yards."
Capt. William T. Whisner, 2 November 1944, 352nd FG "I was using a K-14 sight which I believe to be very effective."
1st Lt. George S. Montgomery, 14 March 1944, 353rd FG "Right away with the aid of my K14 sight, I started hitting him."
1st Lt. Billy J. Murray, 14 January 1945, 353rd FG
1st Lt. H. W. Brown, 11 September 1944, 355th FG Three (3) Me 109's destroyed. "The K-14 sight is a pilot's dream. The accuracy in deflection shooting is unbelievable."
Capt. Charles W. Lamer, 6 October 1944, 355th FG "I used the K 14 sight in these encounters and it was extremely successful."
1st Lt. Robert O. Peters, 20 July 1944, 355th FG Five (5) destroyed. "I was flying YF-S, a P-51 B5 equipped with a new K-14 sight. The sight was perfect and so easy to use in combat that I was amazed. The accuracy was perfect as it always showed hits at the point of aim. Without it I probably would have barely damaged one or two E/A. The sight is a miracle. I had only had one hour practice on it before."
1st Lt. Thomas L. Wood, 14 January 1945, 355th FG "The K-14 sight made the whole thing so easy it was unbelievable. It is something no good fighter plane should be without."
Lt. Col. Donald A. Baccus, 26 November 1944, 356th FG "I used the K-14 gunsight for the first time in aerial combat on this mission. It worked magnificently. It is so much superior to the old type reflector sight that there is no comparison."
Capt. James W. Browning, 5 December 1944, 357th FG "I took the second and with the K-14 made quite a deflection shot. I observed hits in the engine and cockpit."
1st Lt. William R. Dunlop, 19 September 1944, 357th FG "I used the K-14 sight to do the above fireing and consider it far superior to the old sight."
Capt. John B. England, 13 September 1944, 357th FG "Without the K-14 sight and my "G" suit I don't believe I would have gotten this Jerry as he was headed for a heavily defended airdrome."
1st Lt. Frank L Gailer, 7 October 1944, 357th FG "I was using a K-14 sight and feel that it is the best thing yet as far as sights go."
1st Lt. Harold O. Hand, 2 November 1944, 357th FG "I was using a K-14 Gunsight and I think it is much better than the regular ring and bead sight, because it eliminates the guessing of range and lead."
1st Lt. Harry H. Hermansen, 24 August 1944, 357th FG "I highly reccommed the K-14 sight for deflection firing."
1st Lt. H. P. Howell, 13 September 1944, 357th FG "I used a gyro sight on this mission on a P-51D which I found very effective and easy to use."
Capt. Thomas E. Hughes, 2 November 1944, 357th FG "The K-14 Sight is a vast improvement over the old type sight – once you have an E/A properly lined, it is difficult to miss him."
1st Lt. Howard E. Moebius, 18 September 1944, 357th FG "As I was using the K-14 sight, less than 50 rounds were expended."
1st Lt. William B. Overstreet, 29 July 1944, 357th FG The gyro gunsight (k-14) worked extremely well and I think was responsible for getting the hits at first"
1st Lt. Donald J. Pasaka, 19 September 1944, 357th FG "In closing may I add that the K-14 sight is really perfect. In fact it is hard to miss after you once get on him."
1st Lt. Richard C. Roper, 19 September 1944, 357th FG "I had a K-14 sight. It worked perfectly at all angles of deflection and at extreme ranges."
1st Lt. Charles E. Yeager, 12 October 1944, 357th FG "To my estimation the K-14 Sight is the biggest improvement to combat equipment for Fighters up to this date."
1st Lt. Emery C. Cook, 23 December 1944, 359th FG "I hit the e/a at a 60 degree angle and attibuted it to the fact that I was using the K-14 gunsight, which I consider a boom to fighter-piloting."
1st Lt. Chester R. Gilmore, 11 September 1944, 359th FG "My ship is equipped with a K-14 sight and it worked perfectly. I turned on the gyro and put the pip on the cockpit of the E/A. Immediately on firing I observed strikes on the cockpit and he mushed yup into the cloulds."
1st Lt. Robert M. York, 27 November 1944, 359th FG Four (4) Me 109's destroyed. "My K-14 sight was working perfectly."
2nd Lt. Claire P. Chennault, 12 September 1944, 361st FG "I was using the K-14 gun sight and found it excellent."

Kettenhunde
04-04-2008, 05:07 PM
Emotional statements that the facts do not bear out:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The sights seemed to possess almost magical qualities. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not really. In fact it was less lethal than the fixed sight for a period of time.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Luftwaffe began to suffer from the attentions of an enemy who could suddenly fire with uncanny accuracy </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Once again not really. Unless we think that Luftwaffe pilot in the cockpit can distinguish the 2%-3% gain in lethality the RAF realized at the culmination of their training effort on the CGS sights.

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?p=160621&sid...923c2bb9a94c598a6ff1 (http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?p=160621&sid=51c60b7d43f1923c2bb9a94c598a6ff1)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">just combat reports from US pilots using the K14 Gyro </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Certainly. Backs up the conclusion:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The USAAF really benefited from CGS technology because of the amount of training they received on it and experience flying. The Luftwaffe and the RAF did not see the same gains from CGS technology as their pilots were not as experienced and could not realize its full potential. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

All the best,

Crumpp

Wildnoob
04-04-2008, 06:26 PM
people here probably already know my comments about problems with some fligth procedures on this sim, but I gonna do another one now.

by the pilot's comments posted by Xiolablu3, we know that the K-14 was a very impressive equipment.

but, in the sim I have difficult to track a target with it in the gyro mode.

it's really difficult, or I'm with a bad control config or in real life was more pratical (I know the problem is with me).

forgot about my stupid thinkings.

and how about you pilot's, wat is your opinion about the K-14 in IL2 ?

despite the problem to defletion shoots witch really prevent me from firing accurate, I found the K-14 very good, for line fire it's very good and give me great accuracy.

M_Gunz
04-04-2008, 10:20 PM
And there were few or no pilots that disliked the gyro sight?
Is that also the message?

Mr_Nakajima
04-05-2008, 01:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
The USAAF really benefited from CGS technology because of the amount of training they received on it and experience flying. The Luftwaffe and the RAF did not see the same gains from CGS technology as their pilots were not as experienced and could not realize its full potential.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hello Crump, do you have any break-down of those figures to show training time spent on gunnery, rather than total time? It would be interesting to know.

I don't have much info on the Allied gunsights, but in volume 3 of their history of the Me 262, Creek and Smith quote Messerschmidt test pilot Karl Baur about the German equivalent, the EZ 42:

˜Shooting with the EZ 42 is not simple and requires much practice. I imagine that a pilot who has learned on the fixed Revi site and had success with it would want nothing to do with the EZ 42. There are negative aspects to its use in the Me 262 which are created by the aircraft's great speed advantage over existing enemy fighters... In summing up it may be said that shooting with the EZ 42 in the (Me-262) will demand much practice and the use of new tactics'

They also note that JG 7 and JV 44 pilots found the EZ 42 difficult to calibrate and usually locked it into position, so even experienced pilots often preferred not to use it as intended.


Regards,
Mr N

stathem
04-05-2008, 03:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stathem:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by totalspoon:
Stathem Said...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Navy Seafires at this point however had gyro gunsights, G-suits (apparantly ideal for the task of spotting since the job entailed spending a lot of time in relatively high G turns at speed) and no outer brownings fitted. Couldn't speak for whether the Vs in the same job had these features. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Were RAF squadrons ever issued G-Suits? Did all RN flyers wear them?

Spoon </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I can only vouch for the Seafires, since the book (They gave me a Seafire by R.M. Crosley) does not mention the Corsair or Hellcats specifically having them. No reason to suspect not - but the wording does not make it clear.

On the RAF pilots he has something to say - that the suits were made available to the RAf but (at D-Day) were not taken up. Crosley maintains that this was becuse the suits were trialled by the RAF pilots in the high altitude role where the G-forces experienced are lower and were consequently disliked.

The 'official' reason given (why the RN took them up but not the RAF) was that the RAF pilots being being based amoungst the general populace feared that the suits detracted from their 'heroic' fighter pilot image - not an issue with the more tightly knit and separated (by being on carriers) FAA squadrons.

Iirc he goes on to state that they were taken up by the RAF more in the 2nd TAF for ground attack work later in the war where they proved invaluable - but by this point Crosley had set off for the Far East.

I'll dig put the book later when I get home to check - but that's how I remember it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Further to the above, now I've had chance to peruse the chapter,

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
By January 1944, with the assistance of Messrs Dunlop, some 8,000 suits were made in 17 different sizes, nearly half of them being for the FAA... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Although by November 1942 it was already Fighter Command's policy to issue their pilots with the suit by May 1944 in time for D-Day, they made such a poor job of ˜selling' it to the RAF that very few of the RAF pilots took up the offer. The FAA were the only serious takers... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Can't find anything to back up my assertion that the 2nd TAF took it up later...I've either read it somewhere else or made it up

stathem
04-05-2008, 03:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stathem:
Sh*t Max, didn't realise you were a experienced WW2 artillery spotter. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, I was an artillery spotter decades later and it's hard enough to keep directions right when
you're standing still. But those guys did it the hard way it seems! Those planes were good for
almost 4 G's continuous, makes me wonder how the guys in the Piper Cubs managed to do the job
at all without getting blown out of the air. You figure one of those could maintain 2 G's? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I rather suspect that they figured that the environment over the beachhead would be a little too hostile for Piper Cubs, in the first few days, despite the "if you see a plane it will be one of ours" official line. Certainly within a couple of days Crosley was seeing and engaging enemy aircraft - indeed he killed one on 7th June.

He has diary entries for that week...if teh thread's still going on Monday I'll try to scan and post some pages.

Kurfurst__
04-05-2008, 04:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Mr_Nakajima:

They also note that JG 7 and JV 44 pilots found the EZ 42 difficult to calibrate and usually locked it into position, so even experienced pilots often preferred not to use it as intended.

Regards,
Mr N </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It seems to be a similiar fashion as with some Allied pilots - Johnson, IIRC, who considered the gyro sights a 'gimnick' - who did not use the gyro capabilities at all. IIRC one even expressed an opinion that no sight at all is needed, just get close, line up the aircraft with the other and open up..

Pilot opinions are pretty subjective, well, I guess its nothing new, go to a BMW forum and ask people about the I-Drive. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Mr_Nakajima
04-05-2008, 05:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
RAF flying experience:

http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/9228/flyinghourswh7.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

The USAAF really benefited from CGS technology because of the amount of training they received on it and experience flying. The Luftwaffe and the RAF did not see the same gains from CGS technology as their pilots were not as experienced and could not realize its full potential.

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The more I think about this, the more uncomfortable I get with this as a suggestion. I think there are some nuances which undermine Crump's argument.

The first is regarding training. As the notes to Crump's chart show, the RAF figures are for a minimum amount of flying hours, and in operational aircraft only. The 1944 figures for total training flying hours, rather than just those in operational aircraft, are around 350 for the RAF and 400 for the Americans, so there is little difference (figures from Williamson Murray's ˜Luftwaffe').

Additionally, air forces train for what is required of them. An American fighter pilot had to do everything an RAF one had to do, and might have to do it 500 miles from base, and then perhaps navigate back home over featureless ocean or jungle, so their long range navigation training would have to be more thorough. So the assumption of training hours equalling competence in a given task is a simplification.

The key point though is the one I mentioned in my previous post – it is the number of hours spent on gunnery. If there is a number of hours below which training is ineffective and above which it is, it should lie somewhere between the number of hours allocated to gunnery training by the British and Americans, assuming the RAF's figure is actually lower.

Secondly, the underlying assumption is that a pilot's skills are frozen after their training is complete. This is obviously not true – an American pilot who joined the USAAF in 1942 after 100 hours training would by 1944 be much more skilful than one just joining his unit with 200 hours training. A pilot's skills arise from a combination of both training and experience.

Additional training was often provided once a pilot was in the front line. The RAF had seven Armament Practice Camps through which air groups from 2nd TAF were systematically withdrawn to practice combat techniques. 16 APC at Hutton Cranswick for example taught aerial gunnery and between September 43 and May 44 alone trained 12 squadrons which spent anything up to three weeks there.

If pilot skill is the deciding factor in using the gyro gun site, it may also be that the RAF's pilots were simply skilled enough that they gained little benefit from it. By mid-1944 the RAF's fighter pilots were an extremely competent cadre. Christopher Shores points out in his book ˜2nd Tactical Air Force' volume 1 that, compared to the American 9 AF:

"In one respect, 2nd TAF possessed an advantage of some considerable value. During the mid-war years losses of fighter pilots were relatively light, whilst the demands of Bomber Command for aircrew had proved nearly insatiable. Consequently, relatively few of those in 2nd TAF's squadrons were new or inexperienced pilots. Many had been flying on operations for lengthy periods...

With the potential for a Japanese attack on the west coast of Canada mush reduced, RCAF home defence pilots from that area had also been deployed to the UK in substantial numbers, and pilots who had for sometime been retained as instructors... were also now released for operational service, all being highly experienced flyers".

9AF was an extremely powerful, well equipped and trained organisation, but in mid-44 it had yet to gain the experience 2nd TAF had.

All of which wanders a bit off the topic, but the point I am trying to make is that a simple correlation between fewer hours in an operational aircraft during preliminary training does not necessarily equate to the inability to use a specific type of gun site effectively.

Crump's argument could be right, but it needs developing a bit before being demonstrated to be so.

Over to you experts to debate!


Regards,
Mr N

Kettenhunde
04-05-2008, 07:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">As the notes to Crump's chart show, the RAF figures are for a minimum amount of flying hours, and in operational aircraft only. The 1944 figures for total training flying hours, rather than just those in operational aircraft, are around 350 for the RAF and 400 for the Americans, so there is little difference (figures from Williamson Murray's ˜Luftwaffe'). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


You raise some good points. However they are not really valid in this case.

First of all, you are confusing flying and total training hours. In total number of training hours, the RAF was not far behind the USAAF. Their pilots received some very good training. However the numbers on hours they flew is far less than the USAAF. The USAAF pilots in general, had more experienced pilots.

As a pilot myself, It is experience though that counts in the business of aviation.

A million hours in a C172 does not qualify a pilot to fly one single minute in a 747 as PIC.

Although both aircraft my fly the same and the C172 single pilot IFR maybe a much greater pilot workload than the 747, it is experience that counts. The only answer to becoming comfortable with the systems in a 747 is to fly a 747. The more comfortable the pilot is with those systems, the more additional workload he can take on that is devoted to other tasks besides flying the airplane.

Total Training Hours is NOT Flying hours:

http://img178.imageshack.us/img178/9069/gafrafaaffightertraininnf5.gif (http://imageshack.us)

To back up my experience as a pilot and the most damning piece of evidence is the RAF's own conclusions. Once again, an assumption has been made that I am playing detective that is just not true. I was not in WWII. I can only relate what I know from hard science and what the actual participants communicate to us.

The RAF study specifically states that deliberate training programs on the CGS sight began in late 1944.

It is what the RAF says occurred and you can see by their study of aircraft lethality that the CGS sight offers no advantage over a fixed reflector sight.

In fact the CGS sight turned out to be less lethal when not backed up by extensive training on the device and experienced pilots in the cockpit. This mirrors the Luftwaffe experience with CGS sights.

http://img172.imageshack.us/img172/5726/gunnerytrainingnr3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Gunnery training in the traditional sense was irrelevant in this case too.

The main purpose of gunnery training in WWII was to teach a pilot to get close and to get a feel for deflection shooting.

The CGS sight is designed to eliminate the need for deflection shooting skills. The whole point of the sight is to calculate deflection as an algorithmic function.

The purpose of the CGS sight is overcome the need for subjective input in deflection shooting by using technology.

The difficulty arises when you start working the mechanics of the sight. The algorithm only functioned under specific parameters and was limited in complexity. The ranging was manual input and had its own set of complications.

That is not to the say that CGS sights were not the next logical step in targeting technology.

They certainly were and all sides in Europe developed, adopted, produced, and fielded CGS sights.

Like any technology though, they did not magically perform a task but were based on hard science and engineering. Like any new technology, they had difficulties that needed to be overcome.

One of these difficulties was that effective use of the sight required extensive training it the specifics of its use.


All the best,

Crumpp

Kettenhunde
04-05-2008, 07:09 AM
Once again a repost of the lethality results.

GM-2 is the fixed reflex sight:

http://img172.imageshack.us/img172/1246/cgssightlethalitycomparov4.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

The general trend as experienced by the Luftwaffe and the RAF is that without an extensive training program the introduction of CGS sights tended to bring an increase in claims with a decrease in lethality.

All the best,

Crumpp

No41Sqn_Banks
04-05-2008, 08:00 AM
From which book are the charts with flying training hours and total training hour?

M_Gunz
04-05-2008, 08:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stathem:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stathem:
Sh*t Max, didn't realise you were a experienced WW2 artillery spotter. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, I was an artillery spotter decades later and it's hard enough to keep directions right when
you're standing still. But those guys did it the hard way it seems! Those planes were good for
almost 4 G's continuous, makes me wonder how the guys in the Piper Cubs managed to do the job
at all without getting blown out of the air. You figure one of those could maintain 2 G's? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I rather suspect that they figured that the environment over the beachhead would be a little too hostile for Piper Cubs, in the first few days, despite the "if you see a plane it will be one of ours" official line. Certainly within a couple of days Crosley was seeing and engaging enemy aircraft - indeed he killed one on 7th June.

He has diary entries for that week...if teh thread's still going on Monday I'll try to scan and post some pages. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey I believe you, it's just hard to figure as short order cooking on a carnival ride IYKWIM!

The histories I had read put the number of LW planes that got within sight of the beachhead
as very few, finger-countable. If I were there I would be more concerned with flak.

M_Gunz
04-05-2008, 08:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
Once again a repost of the lethality results.

GM-2 is the fixed reflex sight:

http://img172.imageshack.us/img172/1246/cgssightlethalitycomparov4.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

The general trend as experienced by the Luftwaffe and the RAF is that without an extensive training program the introduction of CGS sights tended to bring an increase in claims with a decrease in lethality.

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They only got better results by a margin at the end on that chart, if I read it correctly.
Doesn't that show that perhaps experience over time with the GGS counts, ie on job training?

Kettenhunde
04-05-2008, 08:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">They only got better results by a margin at the end on that chart, if I read it correctly.
Doesn't that show that perhaps experience over time with the GGS counts, ie on job training? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Certainly we see an increase due to on the job experience; the sight was actually in combat from June 1944 on.

The evidence suggests it took the force 11 months of experience to realize a marginal gain.

Notice that in the time period before the 2nd TAF training program was enacted we see very little gain in lethality with the CGS sight.

However our rate of gain in lethality doubles during the period the training program is enacted.

I don't think though it is possible to extract one over the other and the RAF does not claim the sole influence was training either. They both influence the skill level of the force. Both training and experience feed off each other as well.

So you are correct on that observation M_Gunz in that experience does count.

The Luftwaffe raised this same point and their results were similar to the RAF's regarding CGS sights.

This is in contrast to the USAAF results with CGS sights. In that case, more experience and better training paid higher dividends.

All the best,

Crumpp

Kettenhunde
04-05-2008, 08:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">From which book are the charts with flying training hours and total training hour? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


The source is the USAAF classified after action review published post war. Several books reprint these charts too.

All the best,

Crumpp

No41Sqn_Banks
04-05-2008, 09:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
This is in contrast to the USAAF results with CGS sights. In that case, more experience and better training paid higher dividends.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe I have overseen it, but I can't find any USAAF results with the G.G.S. in this thread that I could compare with the RAF results (e.g. it's hard to compare 20 pilot accounts with a gun cam statistic), where can I find them or what was the result?

About the charts: Is "USAAF classified after action review" the name of the report, does it have any ID number?

Kurfurst__
04-05-2008, 11:10 AM
Oh for God`s sake, stop making a fuss about such a trivial matter and try to enjoy your weekend...

stalkervision
04-05-2008, 11:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
No emotion here http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif, just combat reports from US pilots using the K14 Gyro :-


"I used the K-14 Gyro Gunsight and I'm sure it was a definite advantage in the combat."
Capt. John C. Fitch, 18 November 1944, 4th FG "I used the K-14 Gyro Gun Sight and believe it is superior to the fixed sight."
Capt. William J. O'Donnell, 18 December 1944, 4th FG "I used the K-14 sight and found it to be excellent for deflection shooting and superior to the reflector sight."
1st Lt. George C. Smith, 27 September 1944, 4th FG "The K-14 sight was very helpful. I don't think I could have hit the 190 without it."
Capt. Richard P. Gatterdam, 2 November 1944, 20th FG "I wish to express my unqualified recommendation of the K-14 sight which I used in getting this destroyed."
Lt. Col. John L Mc Ginn, 11 September 1944, 55th FG
1st Lt. Edward H. Beavers, 23 September 1944, 339th FG "The K-14 sight, which I used for the first time, is an excellent instrument and is far superior to our old sight."
Capt.Donald W. Johnson, 26 November 1944, 339th FG Three (3) Fw 190's destroyed. "All my shooting was done at 300 yards or less and with the K-14 sight it was easy."
1st Lt. George T. Rich, 18 November 1944, 339th FG "We quickly outclimbed the e/a and, having a K-14 gunsight, I opened up at around 600 yards."
Capt. William T. Whisner, 2 November 1944, 352nd FG "I was using a K-14 sight which I believe to be very effective."
1st Lt. George S. Montgomery, 14 March 1944, 353rd FG "Right away with the aid of my K14 sight, I started hitting him."
1st Lt. Billy J. Murray, 14 January 1945, 353rd FG
1st Lt. H. W. Brown, 11 September 1944, 355th FG Three (3) Me 109's destroyed. "The K-14 sight is a pilot's dream. The accuracy in deflection shooting is unbelievable."
Capt. Charles W. Lamer, 6 October 1944, 355th FG "I used the K 14 sight in these encounters and it was extremely successful."
1st Lt. Robert O. Peters, 20 July 1944, 355th FG Five (5) destroyed. "I was flying YF-S, a P-51 B5 equipped with a new K-14 sight. The sight was perfect and so easy to use in combat that I was amazed. The accuracy was perfect as it always showed hits at the point of aim. Without it I probably would have barely damaged one or two E/A. The sight is a miracle. I had only had one hour practice on it before."
1st Lt. Thomas L. Wood, 14 January 1945, 355th FG "The K-14 sight made the whole thing so easy it was unbelievable. It is something no good fighter plane should be without."
Lt. Col. Donald A. Baccus, 26 November 1944, 356th FG "I used the K-14 gunsight for the first time in aerial combat on this mission. It worked magnificently. It is so much superior to the old type reflector sight that there is no comparison."
Capt. James W. Browning, 5 December 1944, 357th FG "I took the second and with the K-14 made quite a deflection shot. I observed hits in the engine and cockpit."
1st Lt. William R. Dunlop, 19 September 1944, 357th FG "I used the K-14 sight to do the above fireing and consider it far superior to the old sight."
Capt. John B. England, 13 September 1944, 357th FG "Without the K-14 sight and my "G" suit I don't believe I would have gotten this Jerry as he was headed for a heavily defended airdrome."
1st Lt. Frank L Gailer, 7 October 1944, 357th FG "I was using a K-14 sight and feel that it is the best thing yet as far as sights go."
1st Lt. Harold O. Hand, 2 November 1944, 357th FG "I was using a K-14 Gunsight and I think it is much better than the regular ring and bead sight, because it eliminates the guessing of range and lead."
1st Lt. Harry H. Hermansen, 24 August 1944, 357th FG "I highly reccommed the K-14 sight for deflection firing."
1st Lt. H. P. Howell, 13 September 1944, 357th FG "I used a gyro sight on this mission on a P-51D which I found very effective and easy to use."
Capt. Thomas E. Hughes, 2 November 1944, 357th FG "The K-14 Sight is a vast improvement over the old type sight – once you have an E/A properly lined, it is difficult to miss him."
1st Lt. Howard E. Moebius, 18 September 1944, 357th FG "As I was using the K-14 sight, less than 50 rounds were expended."
1st Lt. William B. Overstreet, 29 July 1944, 357th FG The gyro gunsight (k-14) worked extremely well and I think was responsible for getting the hits at first"
1st Lt. Donald J. Pasaka, 19 September 1944, 357th FG "In closing may I add that the K-14 sight is really perfect. In fact it is hard to miss after you once get on him."
1st Lt. Richard C. Roper, 19 September 1944, 357th FG "I had a K-14 sight. It worked perfectly at all angles of deflection and at extreme ranges."
1st Lt. Charles E. Yeager, 12 October 1944, 357th FG "To my estimation the K-14 Sight is the biggest improvement to combat equipment for Fighters up to this date."
1st Lt. Emery C. Cook, 23 December 1944, 359th FG "I hit the e/a at a 60 degree angle and attibuted it to the fact that I was using the K-14 gunsight, which I consider a boom to fighter-piloting."
1st Lt. Chester R. Gilmore, 11 September 1944, 359th FG "My ship is equipped with a K-14 sight and it worked perfectly. I turned on the gyro and put the pip on the cockpit of the E/A. Immediately on firing I observed strikes on the cockpit and he mushed yup into the cloulds."
1st Lt. Robert M. York, 27 November 1944, 359th FG Four (4) Me 109's destroyed. "My K-14 sight was working perfectly."
2nd Lt. Claire P. Chennault, 12 September 1944, 361st FG "I was using the K-14 gun sight and found it excellent." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This all the proof you got? Seems a bit thin... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

M_Gunz
04-05-2008, 01:42 PM
GM-2 is the fixed reflex sight:

http://img172.imageshack.us/img172/1246/cgssightlethalitycomparov4.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

I see a bit more here.

GM2 increases in lethality -- 12% - 25% - 43% - 54% - 56%
GGS starts later but increases ---------- 42% - 48% - 59%

Yeah, training halfway done and largely effective when the GGS was introduced.
There was learning going on that wasn't about gunsights at all, IMO.
The curve on the revi is topping out while the gyro lethality rate is accelerating.

JG53Frankyboy
04-07-2008, 05:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by No41Sqn_Banks:
All right I just had a look at Il-2 compare.

The Spitfire LF V is only 20 mph slower at low altitude than the Spitfire LF IX.

Now if you compare this with a Spitfire F IX, which had lower boost than the LF IX, I would expect that the Spitfire LF V is more then comparable with that mark. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

on the spitfireperfromance page you can find a LF.V with 350mph (Merlin 50M), a F.IX (61) with 338mph and a LF.IX (66) with 363mph all at 6000feet.

so, compared to a F.IX, the LF.V was a good one at lower heights - but a LF.IX was superiour in all aspects.
so i guess, the LF.V's time run out after the LF.IX came i greater numbers to the units.

anyway, anyone knows when a LF.V flew its first combat mission ?

Richardsen
04-07-2008, 10:34 AM
a<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by No41Sqn_Banks:
All right I just had a look at Il-2 compare.

The Spitfire LF V is only 20 mph slower at low altitude than the Spitfire LF IX.

Now if you compare this with a Spitfire F IX, which had lower boost than the LF IX, I would expect that the Spitfire LF V is more then comparable with that mark. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

on the spitfireperfromance page you can find a LF.V with 350mph (Merlin 50M), a F.IX (61) with 338mph and a LF.IX (66) with 363mph all at 6000feet.

so, compared to a F.IX, the LF.V was a good one at lower heights - but a LF.IX was superiour in all aspects.
so i guess, the LF.V's time run out after the LF.IX came i greater numbers to the units.

anyway, anyone knows when a LF.V flew its first combat mission ? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is a early LF V.. Later LV V's where even more powerful! At very low altitudes they did outrun LF IX's and XIV's.
These where used for ground targets and to take on FW 190's at low altitude.

M_Gunz
04-07-2008, 10:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Richardsen:
These where used for ground targets .... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Perhaps you'd care to rephrase that?

Kettenhunde
04-07-2008, 11:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> The curve on the revi is topping out while the gyro lethality rate is accelerating.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think there is enough information to really make that call. Our timeline simply does not extend far enough out as the 3% advantage of the CGS sight was only gained in the last months of the war.

You could be correct but I went with the RAF's conclusions.

Considering the limited amount of time to train, the program was considered a success at raising the experience level of the force with the CGS sight.

All the best,

Crumpp

M_Gunz
04-07-2008, 11:32 AM
EDITED:

I go by the trends of increase in lethality between the two.
Revi lethality only increased by 2% where previously by much more.
The gyro sight lethality increased 11% at the same time as revi lethality increased 2%.
Would you expect more than 2% gains in revi lethality if there had been more time? Or even 2%?
Would you expect marginal gain in lethality with gyro sight immediately after 11% gain?
Had there been more time, how would you project those trends?

Kettenhunde
04-07-2008, 12:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Had there been more time, how would you project those trends? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know. If I had to make I guess it seems it probably would have leveled out. It would have increased some but I don't think the gains would have been all that dramatic.

The general trend with the introduction of CGS sights is an increase in claims with a reduction in lethality.

This follows the increased incidence of shooting beyond the 400 meter mark. Beyond this range, our lethality drops.

IMHO this is because pilots are taking more shots, hitting with fewer rounds due to greater dispersion, and subsequently filing more claims for destruction on an aircraft which was only damaged.

I think we are reaching the potential of both the targeting system and the weapon system by wars end. These are simple algorithms with manual ranging, remember. Lots of room for error and I would not expect their lethality to approach even the first radar ranging sights that appear in just a few years.

All the best,

Crumpp

OMK_Hand
04-07-2008, 02:36 PM
"Anyway, anyone knows when a LF.V flew its first combat mission?"

'During the next few weeks (June into July 1943) most of the Spitfire V squadrons in 12 Group sent their aircraft to 3501 servicing unit at Cranfield so that they could be re-engined with the M-series Merlin 45...
... When the aircraft returned, most pilots were pleasantly surprised by the additional power that the 'cropped blower' Merlin produced...
... 118 Squadron were back in business on 21st June... attacking shipping...'