1. #1
    now im an aviation buff and i was just wandering if anyone has ever noticed how at the close of ww2 both britian and america had prop fighter that could top 450mph. where as the russians could only top 410mph. its like at the end of ww2 britian and america were just trying to see who could go faster lol. i mean its not as if we needed them as russia could make do with the slower planes...
    just thought id raise the point
    Share this post

  2. #2
    now im an aviation buff and i was just wandering if anyone has ever noticed how at the close of ww2 both britian and america had prop fighter that could top 450mph. where as the russians could only top 410mph. its like at the end of ww2 britian and america were just trying to see who could go faster lol. i mean its not as if we needed them as russia could make do with the slower planes...
    just thought id raise the point
    Share this post

  3. #3
    and please be aware that i said prop fighters. if anyone mentions the bell x series going supersonic id just like to mention the british were the first to 1000mph...
    Share this post

  4. #4
    chris455's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    1,791
    Yeah, we noticed.

    Share this post

  5. #5
    VW-IceFire's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    13,646
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jimbolina25:
    now im an aviation buff and i was just wandering if anyone has ever noticed how at the close of ww2 both britian and america had prop fighter that could top 450mph. where as the russians could only top 410mph. its like at the end of ww2 britian and america were just trying to see who could go faster lol. i mean its not as if we needed them as russia could make do with the slower planes...
    just thought id raise the point<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
    However, in most of those cases the Russian fighters were faster in their element than the similar high speed fighters that the RAF and USAAF were feilding.

    The La-7 was fastest at low altitude. The only really fast allied fighter at low altitude was the Tempest V which did have the La-7 beat but the La-7 has other advantages so there are tradeoffs. Meanwhile the Spit XIV or the P-51H or P-47M/N that you are probably refering to were generally reaching their top speeds at higher altitudes.

    So once again, Russian aircraft typically suited for low alt tactical support and the others for higher altitude strategic support. Unlike the militaries of today...the major powers of WWII essentially had the same technological level...


    RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"
    Share this post

  6. #6
    And also, who cares about latewar super mega 2800HP P47N? It ruled the skies after the back of the enemy was broken, so to speak.
    Share this post

  7. #7
    horseback's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    5,052
    USAAF and RAF fighter designs were philosophically built on the "speed is life" model, particularly at at medium to high altitudes. Speed dictates the tactics, in the sense that it allows the pilot with the energy advantage to decide whether to engage, or if the attack was unsuccessful, to disengage from a potentially bad situation.

    Also, it was the one advantage of a new, expensive fighter that the average taxpayer could grasp. For a democracy (or a country with pretensions to democracy), the military budget is as much about public relations as it is about defending the country. So the idea that "our planes fly higher and faster" is more reassuring than "our planes have good accelleration and turn really tight."

    Soviet designs were based on the concept of protecting the sky over the Red Army, and supporting the ground units (and not p!ssing off Stalin). Where the Germans had forced the air war in the ETO and Med higher with their early bombing campaigns, the lack of strategic targets in their medium bombers' range in Russia allowed the Soviets to dictate where the air combat would take place.

    But Soviet designs got faster in their arena of choice too.

    BTW, jenikovtaw, the P-47C was pretty fast at 9000m too, and it was in-theater in the Spring of 1943, in plenty of time to break the enemy's back. The N model was just an incremental improvement of an existing design.

    cheers

    horseback

    "Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944
    Share this post

  8. #8
    Cajun76's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    4,233
    Not to say that the Jug was slow at low altitudes, it just shone better the higher it went. At one time I made a comparasion to a 109G6 and a P-47D-35. The 109 was only slightly faster on the deck than the D-35. But as stated, speed is life, otherwise 2000hp Gladiators would have ruled the skies. Turning was less than a big deal later in the war at high alt. Low alt tactical combat is a differant story, but speed is still extremely useful.

    Good hunting,
    Cajun76


    What if there were no hypothetical questions?
    Share this post

  9. #9
    jenikovtaw:

    Your disrespect for the P-47N is noted; however, I'll be watching for the fear on your face when she appears in this game by way of a future patch.

    The P-47J was the fastest of the Jugs anyway, but was not produced. She too was in flight well prior to "breaking the enemies back".


    â"If you want full realism, join the military!â"
    Share this post

  10. #10
    I've never heard of the P-47J. I've heard of the P-47M which was slightly faster than the N model, but only had six .50 cal. guns. as opposed to eight.

    The P-47N was still the ultimate Jug, and certainly nothing to joke about.

    When I think about it I wonder why the USAAF (later USAF) didn't keep the P-47D/N for a fighter-bomber instead of the P-51 (later F-51). I think the P-47 could have been much more useful over Korea than the P-51, at the very least for being much more durable than the P-51.
    Share this post