Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
The_Red_Butcher

come now wg you can do better

79 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

16
[7FLT]
Members
115 posts
5,574 battles

so i had the pleasant experience of slapping a gz 1 around today with a shokaku; which i know its the shokaku its basically the gold standard but none the less, wg do better. theres no reason my fighters should dogfight and win almost every fight with out taking casualties. n1k5a's are nice planes however bf109's were effective planes so they really shouldn't get slaughtered that way, cant comment on the deep water torps because he didnt really get many chances to use them but please wg at least make the dogfights a little less oppressive. if my Japanese fighters are doing this i shudder to think what american fighters do to them. at this rate the only reason for me to strafe bf109's is to kill them quicker than i already do ie not worth the ammo expenditure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,367
[HINON]
[HINON]
Beta Testers
5,913 posts
5,217 battles

Literally no version of the 109 is even remotely as capable as an N1K. Historically speaking, which you are alluding to the historical success of the 109, the N1K is worlds ahead. The GZ's 109s are navalized 109Es. The 109E was pretty outdated by like late 41. N1K vs 109E is like putting an F4U Corsair against an F-4F Wildcat. The F-4F was a capable plane in it's own way, but if you threw one into the skies against a Corsair, RIP Mr. Wildcat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,130
[NBGC]
Members
3,043 posts
10,248 battles

Which is why they downtiered the GZ's fighters, comparable to the "floatplane" Emil (as the Bf 109E was called) carried by Tier VII German cruisers and battleships equipped with the Catapult Fighter consumable.

If WG insists on keeping the Graf at Tier VIII, they seriously need to consider replacing her fighters with Fw 190s, which were much, much more capable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
886
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
3,459 posts
8,119 battles
22 minutes ago, The_Red_Butcher said:

so i had the pleasant experience of slapping a gz 1 around today with a shokaku; which i know its the shokaku its basically the gold standard but none the less, wg do better. theres no reason my fighters should dogfight and win almost every fight with out taking casualties. n1k5a's are nice planes however bf109's were effective planes so they really shouldn't get slaughtered that way, cant comment on the deep water torps because he didnt really get many chances to use them but please wg at least make the dogfights a little less oppressive. if my Japanese fighters are doing this i shudder to think what american fighters do to them. at this rate the only reason for me to strafe bf109's is to kill them quicker than i already do ie not worth the ammo expenditure.

They are 1938 Bf-109E's converted to CV use (hence T designation) against 1943/44 N1K's. The 109E/T has the same firepower as the A6M IJN gets at tier 5/6, less durable engine, and less agility so aside from really being a tier 6 plane, 7 is an insane stretch still, so in those regards, yeah, they should in a sense, historically and without DFE gameplay wise kinda get rolled by even IJN, but yeah, not that hard. I've encountered the earlier DB version with an AS Lex and yeah, it's not pretty and further demonstrates the need for proper fighter balance.

 

Aside from the tier drop they got, they need more planes per group to raise their DPS a bit and reduce as well how fast the DPS drops (the issue between IJN and USN we see as is is that shoot down chance is plane DPS x number of planes remaining/enemy HP[the number you see, not times number of planes], which amounts to USN having an actual higher DPS, higher shoot down chance, more ammo, and losing less DPS as it looses planes). Along with just make GZ more a DDhunter and have to burn larger ships down over time.

 

5 minutes ago, Captain_Dorja said:

Literally no version of the 109 is even remotely as capable as an N1K. Historically speaking, which you are alluding to the historical success of the 109, the N1K is worlds ahead. The GZ's 109s are navalized 109Es. The 109E was pretty outdated by like late 41. N1K vs 109E is like putting an F4U Corsair against an F-4F Wildcat. The F-4F was a capable plane in it's own way, but if you threw one into the skies against a Corsair, RIP Mr. Wildcat.

 

The later war variants, Late G models, certainly K, could have actually posed a fair challenge. The 190 would be better, but the N1K still was somewhat lacking for armour though far superior to the A6M's and the 13 mm/single 30 was quite destructive even to US built planes, let alone IJN, as well as having comparable speed. Agility would likely still go to the N1K though and the 109 would likely have to use similar "Boom and Zoom" or team tactics as the USN did against IJN planes. the E though, like I said above, not a chance in hell. The stuka even the only last remotely comparable plane to it is the tier 7 USN DB and even then, that's a better design still than the 1938 Stuka. These aircraft are part of why I've said the ship shouldn't be a tier 8 ship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
116
[WOLF6]
Members
488 posts
8,158 battles

Um, no. The FW-190 was a good fighter, but those performance figures come from being a lightweight plane that could never hold up to naval service. Navalized planes are considerably heavier to withstand harsh conditions that would destroy land based fighters. Can't just drop one in just because its "better". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
764
[ARS]
Beta Testers
2,253 posts
1,860 battles

Lets put it this way, the Bf109T was a navalized Bf109E.  The Bf109E is most famous for its participation as the main German fighter in the Battle of Britain, in the summer of 1940.  It had an 1100hp engine and two outdated 20mm cannons with 60 round drums.

 

The N1K2-J was introduced in 1945, powered by a 1990hp engine and armed with four 20mm, superior 20mm cannons with 200+ rounds per gun.  And automatic combat flaps.

 

Good luck if you're part of a force of Bf109Ts being sent at a force of N1K2-Js.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,130
[NBGC]
Members
3,043 posts
10,248 battles
Just now, Xechran said:

Um, no. The FW-190 was a good fighter, but those performance figures come from being a lightweight plane that could never hold up to naval service. Navalized planes are considerably heavier to withstand harsh conditions that would destroy land based fighters. Can't just drop one in just because its "better". 

Kurt Tank would have found a way.

@WanderingGhost Airplanes don't have "armor" in the same way as any other vehicle. On most types, about all you might get would be 5-10mm of plate, just behind the pilot; instead, fighters and bombers rely on redundancy and other design features to promote survivability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
688
[SF-3]
Beta Testers
1,628 posts
5,550 battles

Regarding the heading of this thread.

No, they actually can't. They are incapable of actually balancing CVs. A 3rd party team needs to come in and do it.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
886
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
3,459 posts
8,119 battles
1 minute ago, Goodwood_Alpha said:

Kurt Tank would have found a way.

@WanderingGhost Airplanes don't have "armor" in the same way as any other vehicle. On most types, about all you might get would be 5-10mm of plate, just behind the pilot; instead, fighters and bombers rely on redundancy and other design features to promote survivability.

 

I'm aware that they don't have armour in the traditional sense like say a tank, and that some of the durability is from redundancies and things like self sealing tanks. That said they did also put armour around other vital points and what the wing was made of and how thick it was did make a difference between say a 7.7 mm round basically bouncing off or having minimal impact and taking 20 mm hits and still being flyable. Or in some cases lack of metal armour as there were reports of early hurricanes (initially having cloth in the construction if I recall correctly) having 20 mm rounds pass through before arming. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
977
Members
4,566 posts
6,505 battles
12 minutes ago, Xechran said:

Um, no. The FW-190 was a good fighter, but those performance figures come from being a lightweight plane that could never hold up to naval service. Navalized planes are considerably heavier to withstand harsh conditions that would destroy land based fighters. Can't just drop one in just because its "better". 

The American Grumman's were built like brick sh#t houses.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,130
[NBGC]
Members
3,043 posts
10,248 battles
Just now, WanderingGhost said:

I'm aware that they don't have armour in the traditional sense like say a tank, and that some of the durability is from redundancies and things like self sealing tanks. That said they did also put armour around other vital points and what the wing was made of and how thick it was did make a difference between say a 7.7 mm round basically bouncing off or having minimal impact and taking 20 mm hits and still being flyable. Or in some cases lack of metal armour as there were reports of early hurricanes (initially having cloth in the construction if I recall correctly) having 20 mm rounds pass through before arming. 

Machine gun rounds bouncing off airplanes...haha, that's funny! I'll have to remember that one... :cap_win::cap_rambo:

Here's the thing about aerial cannons, especially beasts like the Mk 103 and 108 30mms carried by later-war German aircraft: their explosive shells didn't have any sort of piercing fuse at all. They didn't need one, they could use the simplest contact exploders because they were going up against very thin-skinned planes. Even the legendarily tough B-17 would not be able to survive much more than two hits from a 30mm, and even a single well-placed shot would spell its eventual doom. Overpenetrations? Heh, not bloody likely, and the notion is entirely irrelevant simply due to the sheer rate-of-fire of aircraft-mounted machine guns and autocannons. It takes less than a handful of 20mm slugs to down something like a Mustang or a Messerschmitt (hell, a single rifle-caliber bullet to the radiator will do in any liquid-cooled engine), and only a few more to take out a Thunderbolt or a Wurger, but that's all down to pilot skill.

Granted, the 7.7mms and .303s were phased out fairly early, as the British and then the Japanese realized that rifle-caliber just wasn't effective enough despite the volume of fire. The jump from those calibers to 13mm and .50cal is significant enough that, during Korea, F-86 Sabres could still use six M3s (an electrically-fired variant of the Ma Deuce capable of a higher ROF) to down the sturdily-built MiG-15. And when it comes to fabric-skinned planes from early on in WWII, again it'll be ROF that does them in, rather than individual shots hitting them "just right" to knock out hydraulics, fuel lines, etc..

Aircraft marksmanship has always required much, much greater skill than that of any other weapons system, even today with modern rotary cannon arrangements such as the M61 Vulcan and its successor (whatever that is).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
116
[WOLF6]
Members
488 posts
8,158 battles
3 minutes ago, dmckay said:

The American Grumman's were built like brick sh#t houses.  

 

 

And had to make drastic compromises to achieve the performance they did. To reduce weight their folding wings were designed to break off in combat maneuvers rather than strengthen the hinge. Their armament was also reduced from 6 .50s, as had been common, to 4. They did get the upgraded m3s, which offset the reduction with higher volume of fire. It was comparable in size with the 190As, but had 700 more horsepower and a 4 bladed propeller.

 

Compromises. Climb rate, turn rate, range etc. would all have been better on the same sketch without the need to navalize.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
977
Members
4,566 posts
6,505 battles
12 minutes ago, Xechran said:

 

 

And had to make drastic compromises to achieve the performance they did. To reduce weight their folding wings were designed to break off in combat maneuvers rather than strengthen the hinge. Their armament was also reduced from 6 .50s, as had been common, to 4. They did get the upgraded m3s, which offset the reduction with higher volume of fire. It was comparable in size with the 190As, but had 700 more horsepower and a 4 bladed propeller.

 

Compromises. Climb rate, turn rate, range etc. would all have been better on the same sketch without the need to navalize.

I think you are referring to the Wildcat. The Hellcat always, to my knowledge, always carried six fifty cals. I never have heard their wings were "designed to break off in combat" either. The Wildcat was not great but managed to hold it's own against Japanese fighters with changes in tactics.  The Hellcat, however, totally owned the Zeros and most all other Japanese fighters both land and carrier based when it appeared in 43. Hell of a carrier plane and did what it was designed to do in the PTO.

Edited by dmckay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,130
[NBGC]
Members
3,043 posts
10,248 battles
19 minutes ago, Xechran said:

And had to make drastic compromises to achieve the performance they did. To reduce weight their folding wings were designed to break off in combat maneuvers rather than strengthen the hinge. Their armament was also reduced from 6 .50s, as had been common, to 4. They did get the upgraded m3s, which offset the reduction with higher volume of fire. It was comparable in size with the 190As, but had 700 more horsepower and a 4 bladed propeller.

Compromises. Climb rate, turn rate, range etc. would all have been better on the same sketch without the need to navalize.

Err, wat?

No Grumman aircraft I am aware of ever carried the M3, which wasn't even invented until well after the war ended, and frankly I call [citation needed] on the breakaway folding wings. While it is true that the F4F-4 lost a pair of M2s compared to the F4F-3, the FM-2 got them back right along with a more powerful engine, serving with distinction right up until the end of the war. Even before the capture of the Akutan Zero, folks like John Thatch had already worked out ways to defeat the Zero—which is the true go-to example of "carrierborne compromise" that you seem to be going for.

The things that govern what an aircraft can and cannot handle, in terms of pilot protection, survivability, and even navalization, are things like powerful engines, good power-to-weight ratio, redundancy in design, and even the basic aerodynamics of the airframe itself. Grumman could afford to build its planes like brick s***houses because Grumman had access to very powerful engines, such as the Pratt & Whitney R2800 Double Wasp for the Hellcat and Corsair. The reason why the Japanese had to cut so many corners was because they never developed the kind of engines that the U.S., U.K., Germany and Russia could field, and even once they developed twin-banked 18-cylindar engines, they were still underpowered compared to their contemporaries.

Given her engine and airframe potential, I have every confidence that with the right modifications, the Fw 190 could have made for a decent-to-excellent carrierborne fighter.

Edited by Goodwood_Alpha
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16
[7FLT]
Members
115 posts
5,574 battles

gotcha guys, i suppose you're right if its a modified e model, i didnt actually know which varient of 109 it was so i figured if its at t8 it would be a modified g or k series which actually were pretty decient planes, of ocurse fw 190's or ta152's would be superior to the 109's but this is wargaming were talking about. from an in game perspective alone id like to see them preform a bit better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
977
Members
4,566 posts
6,505 battles
4 minutes ago, Goodwood_Alpha said:

Err, wat?

No Grumman aircraft I am aware of ever carried the M3, which wasn't even invented until well after the war ended, and frankly I call [citation needed] on the breakaway folding wings. While it is true that the F4F-4 lost a pair of M2s compared to the F4F-3, the FM-2 got them back right along with a more powerful engine, serving with distinction right up until the end of the war. Even before the capture of the Akutan Zero, folks like John Thatch had already worked out ways to defeat the Zero—which is the true go-to example of "carrierborne compromise" that you seem to be going for.

The things that govern what an aircraft can and cannot handle, in terms of pilot protection, survivability, and even navalization, are things like powerful engines, good power-to-weight ratio, redundancy in design, and even the basic aerodynamics of the airframe itself. Grumman could afford to build its planes like brick s***houses because Grumman had access to very powerful engines, such as the Pratt & Whitney R2800 Double Wasp for the Hellcat and Corsair. The reason why the Japanese had to cut so many corners was because they never developed the kind of engines that the U.S., U.K., Germany and Russia could field, and even once they developed twin-banked 18-cylindar engines, they were still underpowered compared to their contemporaries.

Given her engine and airframe potential, I have every confidence that with the right modifications, the Fw 190 could have made for a decent-to-excellent carrierborne fighters.

Very good.  I am a huge fan of WWII aviation. Excellent FACTS here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,130
[NBGC]
Members
3,043 posts
10,248 battles
Just now, dmckay said:

Very good.  I am a huge fan of WWII aviation. Excellent FACTS here.

Thank you. :Smile_honoring:

I've always adored aircraft in all their forms, and was a huge flight-sim nut in my late teens and throughout my twenties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
886
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
3,459 posts
8,119 battles
2 minutes ago, Goodwood_Alpha said:

Machine gun rounds bouncing off airplanes...haha, that's funny! I'll have to remember that one... :cap_win::cap_rambo:

Here's the thing about aerial cannons, especially beasts like the Mk 103 and 108 30mms carried by later-war German aircraft: their explosive shells didn't have any sort of piercing fuse at all. They didn't need one, they could use the simplest contact exploders because they were going up against very thin-skinned planes. Even the legendarily tough B-17 would not be able to survive much more than two hits from a 30mm, and even a single well-placed shot would spell its eventual doom. Overpenetrations? Heh, not bloody likely, and the notion is entirely irrelevant simply due to the sheer rate-of-fire of aircraft-mounted machine guns and autocannons. It takes less than a handful of 20mm slugs to down something like a Mustang or a Messerschmitt (hell, a single rifle-caliber bullet to the radiator will do in any liquid-cooled engine), and only a few more to take out a Thunderbolt or a Wurger, but that's all down to pilot skill.

Granted, the 7.7mms and .303s were phased out fairly early, as the British and then the Japanese realized that rifle-caliber just wasn't effective enough despite the volume of fire. The jump from those calibers to 13mm and .50cal is significant enough that, during Korea, F-86 Sabres could still use six M3s (an electrically-fired variant of the Ma Deuce capable of a higher ROF) to down the sturdily-built MiG-15. And when it comes to fabric-skinned planes from early on in WWII, again it'll be ROF that does them in, rather than individual shots hitting them "just right" to knock out hydraulics, fuel lines, etc..

Aircraft marksmanship has always required much, much greater skill than that of any other weapons system, even today with modern rotary cannon arrangements such as the M61 Vulcan and its successor (whatever that is).

 

Some smaller calibers did in fact bounce when they hit because like any bullet hitting at certain angles despite how thin the armour may be will cause it to just bounce off. I am more than aware the destructive potential of the 30 mm cannon, and contact fuses, again, this is the earliest days of the war I was referencing, I may well have the wrong plane because I'm pulling from my head on the fly from over 20 years of study while doing other things. If I remember correctly though earlier 20 mm ammo used by the Germans was not all contact detonation in the first place and fabric still may not have had enough resistance even if they were. Which yes, eventually, you'll hit something important or put enough holes in it but that takes ammo which if I recall the early models only carried about 60 20 mm rounds per gun. And you end up wasting say 10 each just to put a plane down with enough holes, it become a bit of an issue not factoring in any misses. Various reasons they moved to .50 and up, and the Americans stuck with the .50 because it was "good enough" and carried 100's of rounds, though certain improved Japanese designs that had better protection and the Fw-190 did sometimes give it issues of requiring that many more rounds, as opposed to the 20 mm and 30 mm most countries had gone to, in which sure you have taking the Corsair 400 rounds per gun, I believe some planes had 500+, against the likes of the N1K now carrying around 200 rounds per gun with harder hitting 20 mm cannons. Which yeah, the F-86 could down Mig-15's, certainly helps when about half the plane is a complex, sensitive engine and uses highly combustible fuel. Mig-15 could basically land a couple rounds anywhere and take out an F-86 given it used cannons. And even then, as I recall, the F-86 was Army/AF who were basically hold outs at that point as the Navy had actually for the most part switched to 20 mm cannons for various reasons including versatility against ground targets with a bit better protection and the fact it took fewer hits usually to knock something down. Though cannons did usually, at least early on, mean trading weight and some mobility. 

 

Either way, thanks for explaining things I already know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
116
[WOLF6]
Members
488 posts
8,158 battles
16 minutes ago, dmckay said:

I think you are referring to the Wildcat. The Hellcat always, to my knowledge, always carried six fifty cals. I never have heard their wings were "designed to break off in combat" either. The Wildcat was not great but managed to hold it's own against Japanese fighters with changes in tactics.  The Hellcat, however, totally owned the Zeros and most all other Japanese fighters both land and carrier based when it appeared in 43. Hell of a carrier plane and did what it was designed to do in the PTO.

 

 

Since the reference was to the FW-190 I assumed we were discussing the F8F, the most direct naval analogue.

10 minutes ago, Goodwood_Alpha said:

Err, wat?

No Grumman aircraft I am aware of ever carried the M3, which wasn't even invented until well after the war ended, and frankly I call [citation needed] on the breakaway folding wings.

 

Call it if you wish, go look into it. Also you may be right about the .50s, I may have been thinking of the AN/M3. In which case the F8F-1 just gave up a pair of .50s flat out. For some reason I thought it was balanced out by the new equipment.

 

edit: here - https://www.cafsocal.com/aircraft/grumman-f8f-2-bearcat/

Quote

The outboard 3 feet of each wing was designed to break away if the wings were overstressed, thereby preventing catastrophic failure of the entire wing structure. Explosive bolts would automatically discard one wing tip if the other wing was broken off by stress. These “Safety Wing Tips” were not as safe as expected, and were eliminated after some fatal accidents. Several pilots shed their wing tips and augered in during dive-bombing pullouts; others had wing tip blow-offs during carrier landings, injuring deck crewmen.

 

Edited by Xechran

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
977
Members
4,566 posts
6,505 battles
1 minute ago, Goodwood_Alpha said:

Thank you. :Smile_honoring:

I've always adored aircraft in all their forms, and was a huge flight-sim nut in my late teens and throughout my twenties.

NP!  I live near Dayton Oh not too far from the U.S. Air Force Museum.  Great museum. Much better than the Smithsonian IMO although the Smithsonian has some very historical stuff like The Spirit of St Louis etc. The Air Force Museum has a Japanese N1K....one of 3 that still exist. They also got a beauty of a ME 262.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
886
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
3,459 posts
8,119 battles
2 minutes ago, Xechran said:

 

 

Since the reference was to the FW-190 I assumed we were discussing the F8F, the most direct naval analogue.

 

Call it if you wish, go look into it. Also you may be right about the .50s, I may have been thinking of the AN/M3. In which case the F8F-1 just gave up a pair of .50s flat out. For some reason I thought it was balanced out by the new equipment.

 

I would not really qualify the F8F as the analogue to the 190, the Corsair if anything is better. The F8F was designed to be a replacement to the F4F's operating on smaller CV's that couldn't operate newer, better fighters like the F6F and F4U, hence the flip flop of having 4.50' then going to 4x 20 mm cannons that were, in fact, the AN/M3 20 mm cannon, in later builds which likely caused the confusion. Honestly that, lower fuel and the rest, much as it was faster, climbed better and was lighter than a Hellcat, is why I honestly hate it as the tier X plane. Basically it was "how can we make it light and cheap as possible to be on escort CV's" that ended up becoming out of date and mostly scrapped after the war for the fleet carriers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,130
[NBGC]
Members
3,043 posts
10,248 battles
5 minutes ago, Xechran said:

Since the reference was to the FW-190 I assumed we were discussing the F8F, the most direct naval analogue.

Call it if you wish, go look into it. Also you may be right about the .50s, I may have been thinking of the AN/M3. In which case the F8F just gave up a pair of .50s flat out. For some reason I thought it was balanced out by the new equipment.

This is why you don't assume things. :Smile-_tongue:

The F8F was absolutely not an analogue to the Fw 190, not in any way, shape or form, so I have no idea how that notion could have gotten into your head. As far as I'm aware, the Bearcat was designed to do everything that a Hellcat or Corsair could do, but in a much smaller airframe that provided a marked increase in power-to-weight. While some early variants might have carried six .50cal, by far the lion's share of production models carried two 20mm cannons in each wing. They could still carry considerable external ordnance as well.

That thing about the unsafe safety tips is new, but again it was a stupid idea that doesn't have any bearing on your original...post.

Just now, dmckay said:

NP!  I live near Dayton Oh not too far from the U.S. Air Force Museum.  Great museum. Much better than the Smithsonian IMO although the Smithsonian has some very historical stuff like The Spirit of St Louis etc. The Air Force Museum has a Japanese N1K....one of 3 that still exist. They also got a beauty of a ME 262.

Lucky! I've been to the NA&S Museum once, when I was nine, and though I live just north of Detroit, I don't have any real means of getting down to Wright-Patterson AFB to visit the museum. That said, I did visit the Naval Air Museum at Pensacola NAS with my Scout troop back when I was thirteen, and remember quite a bit—I've also been to the Yankee Air Museum a couple of times.

But I really want to behold the magnificence that is the B-36 Peacemaker.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,231
[GWG]
[GWG]
Members
5,414 posts
9,604 battles

Seeing how the GZ was never operational, it's Air arm was never developed.  The Stuka and ME109 were 'starter' aircraft for training.

German Engineers helped the IJN develop their CV aircraft, most notably, the Zero and Kate.  If the GZ ever went into operations, they have ample experience to develop these unseen planes - operational by 1942-43.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
977
Members
4,566 posts
6,505 battles
3 minutes ago, Goodwood_Alpha said:

This is why you don't assume things. :Smile-_tongue:

The F8F was absolutely not an analogue to the Fw 190, not in any way, shape or form, so I have no idea how that notion could have gotten into your head. As far as I'm aware, the Bearcat was designed to do everything that a Hellcat or Corsair could do, but in a much smaller airframe that provided a marked increase in power-to-weight. While some early variants might have carried six .50cal, by far the lion's share of production models carried two 20mm cannons in each wing. They could still carry considerable external ordnance as well.

That thing about the unsafe safety tips is new, but again it was a stupid idea that doesn't have any bearing on your original...post.

Lucky! I've been to the NA&S Museum once, when I was nine, and though I live just north of Detroit, I don't have any real means of getting down to Wright-Patterson AFB to visit the museum. That said, I did visit the Naval Air Museum at Pensacola NAS with my Scout troop back when I was thirteen, and remember quite a bit—I've also been to the Yankee Air Museum a couple of times.

But I really want to behold the magnificence that is the B-36 Peacemaker.

 

O wow that B-36 at the AFM totally dominates by it's sheer size the area of the museum it is in. I am old enough to remember seeing that damn monster take off from Wright Pat AFB when I was a little kid in the early 50's.  I was like 5 years old. Go to the AFM if ya ever get a chance.  Easily takes a day cause they got sooooo much stuff....displays and planes.  They got James Stewart's A2 flight jacket.  He flew B-24's in WWII as you no doubt know.  They got the Nagasaki B-29 strike plane Bock's Car. They got, they got....hell they got a ton of sh#t.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×