The Last airplane shot down ww2 ?? - Help needed

[Ironmachine]

Regarding the relatively unknown navalized P-51D Mustang, and other post-war navalized P-51Hs, there is a good article here:
http://www.mustang.gaetanmarie.com/arti ... /naval.htm
Considering everything, it is doubtful that it would have been a successful carrier fighter.

[R Leonard]

,

a “fun airplane to fly.”

i know you wouldnt mean this but FUN dosent necessarily indicate a good plane. FUN usaully meant, good handling and stability and easy use. example. the bf-110 was also considered FUN to fly. but it got slaughtered didnt it? just like the wildcat was slaughtered by zeros

Nope, "fun" was exactly the word used. As you point out, "fun" does not always equate with combat effectiveness. Even amongst F2A drivers, the F2A-3, with its increased weight from armor, self-seal tanks, and auxiliary wing tanks, was considered a dog when compared to the -2. Most F4F drivers, at least those with F4F-3 or F4F-3A combat experience considered the F4F-4 to be a trying mount due to it's increased weight as well.

You need to hit the books a little harder, the F4F was nowhere near "slaughtered" by the Japanese A6Ms, ever; in fact it is generally regarded to have a positive credit to loss ratio.

For example, in the first six months of the war, up through Midway, F4Fs out scored A6Ms 14 to 12; and of the 12 F4Fs lost 3 are presumed to have been shot down and 1 loss may have been from friendly AA fire.

CV-2 - - VF-2 - - 5/8/1942 - - 3 - - MIA probably shot down A6M2
CV-2 - - VF-2 - - 5/8/1942 - - 2 - - shot down A6M2
CV-5 - - VF-42 - - 5/8/1942 - - 1 - - forced down, battle damage A6M2
CV-5 - - VF-3 - - 6/4/1942 - - 3 - - shot down A6M2
CV-5 - - VF-3 - - 6/4/1942 - - 1 - - shot down A6M2
CV-5 - - VF-3 - - 6/4/1942 - - 1 - - forced down, battle damage A6M2
CV-8 - - VF-8 - - 6/4/1942 - - 1 - - shot down A6M2 (possibly friendly AA fire)

A6M losses to F4Fs, 14, represent half of the total A6Ms lost against USN/USMC aircraft through the Battle of Midway.

Shoho - - 5/7/1942 - - 1 - - shot down by F4F (VF-42)
Shokaku - - 5/8/1942 - - 2 - - shot down by F4F (VF-42)
Hiryu - - 6/4/1942 - - 3 - - shot down by F4F (VF-3)
Hiryu - - 6/4/1942 - - 1 - - shot down by F4F CAP (VF-3)
Hiryu - - 6/4/1942 - - 1 - - shot down by F4F CAP (VF-6)
Kaga - - 6/4/1942 - - 5 - - shot down by F4F (VF-3)
Kaga - - 6/4/1942 - - 1 - - shot down by F4F (VMF 221)

After Midway, came the Guadalcanal and the Solomons where the cream of the IJN aviation was slowly but surely ground away, including most of the experienced A6M drivers.

Trust me, anyone telling you different about A6Ms slaughtering F4Fs doesn’t know what they’re talking about.

R

[R Leonard]

What more could operate.
F3F (out of service 1943?)
F7F Tigercat (in service 1945?)
F8F Bearcat (in service may 1945?)
and a P-51D (Built Number 57987/ex 44-14017 modified for succesful carrier trials on 15 Nov 44).

F3F was out of line service in 1941, though it continued to be used in the training command until it could be replaced by more, relatively, modern types.

During the same testing where Bob Elder was running carrier suitability tests with the P-51D, Charlie Lane was testing the F7F. It didn’t do very well and was never accepted for carrier operations. All F7F squadrons were land based. Syd Bottomley was testing the PBJ (the Navy's version of the B-25) in the same series of tests.

The F8F never made it to combat, but Joe Smith’s F8F equipped VF-19 was in the Pacific and headed west when the war ended.

R

[R Leonard]

Well, the F4F pilot, was a naval aviator. And every naval aviator knows that once a liquid cooled engine loses its coolant, it is time to "hit the silk" as they say. Whereas, the US naval aircraft were exclusivley radial engined because radials were rugged, reliable and tended to continue running even when severely damaged.

But, then again I could be totally of the mark.

Nope, he just said he did not like the way it handled. On the other hand, postwar, at TacTest in March 46, he checked out in the same P-51D that Bob Elder tested aboard Shangri La in November 44. Both he and Bob Elder related to me in the same conversation that the P-51 was another "fun" plane to fly, with many virtues, and neither would have any problem taking one into combat - - - it just was not suited for carrier operations and any factory modifications would, long term, probably negate some of the planes more sterling qualities.

R

[kriegsmarine221]

a p-51 wouldnt have been suited to carrier operations anyway. the p-51 was a very good high altitude plane but it was poor in low altitude. 40 zeros suddenly appearing on the top of your carrier wouldnt be the best situation for a mustang. but then again there were better planes. like the corsair. and by the end of world war 2 most piston engined aircraft were being quickly outclassed by jets. and do you think a mig-9 could shoot down a f8 bearcat in a dogfight?

[R Leonard]

No offense, but I don't play "what if's".

[kriegsmarine221]

actually 40 zeros attacking your carrier group could be likely.

[bf109 emil]

actually 40 zeros attacking your carrier group could be likely.

i would more worried if they happened to be Kates, Vals or Judy's then zeros
an atricle and pics on Naval Mustangs and trialshttp://www.mustang.gaetanmarie.com/arti ... /naval.htm
nice pic of naval trials on the Shangri la

[Ironmachine]

an atricle and pics on Naval Mustangs and trials...

Already posted by me at the top of the page...

On a funny note, there were actually a group of naval aviators who did fly the Mustang in combat operations... just not from a carrier. They were pilots from VCS-8; see more here:
http://www.history.navy.mil/download/ww2-30.pdf

[R Leonard]

actually 40 zeros attacking your carrier group could be likely.

Sorry, should have been clearer; I was referring to your F8F v Yak-9 question.

As far as 40 A6Ms appearing over a USN carrier task group is concerned, not likely for several reasons; truthfully, I doubt one could find a single instance of 40 A6Ms appearing over a US carrier task group or task force, even at the height of the kamikaze season, at any time during the war. Note:

Early war, 40 A6Ms represents the full VF complements of 2 plus IJN fleet carriers. Unless they’ve at least 5 carriers at hand, sending essentially 2½ squadrons of fighters off to, at that stage of the war A6Ms were not bomb toters, fly in circles around a US carrier or carriers was not a very wise nor particularly effective use of assets.

Related to VF complements, the USN started with the typical squadron consisting of about 18 fighters. Within 6 months complements were up to 27 fighters. In another 6 months 36 was the standard and so on. By the end of the war, 70 fighters in two squadrons per fleet carrier was not unusual; and at that time the IJN would have been hard pressed to gaggle together 40 A6Ms for any sortie much less on that could hold together long enough to arrive over a US task group. Remember, by the end of the war, USN carrier task groups were typically two fleet carriers and one light carrier, so you are looking at something like 160 fighters. The IJN started at about the same place and they, too, realized that the survival of a carrier depended on its VF capability and slowly increased their VF complements as well. The problems they ran up against were: slow delivery of new or replacement aircraft, slow delivery of new or replacement fighter pilots, a steady diminishing of decks upon which to put them. The truth of the matter was that the IJN in the 1943 -1944 period was barely able to make good losses in aircraft and personnel and was rarely able to get ahead of the curve and develop new, not of a simple replacement nature, equipment and personnel. After June 1944, there was no recovery from personnel losses.

Radar - the USN had it all along, the IJN did not, at least not as a standard installation until late 1943. Upshot was an absence of coordinated, however rudimentary, fighter direction. The USN could depend on something a little longer ranged than Mark I Eyeballs. Thus, and as time went on, incoming IJN aircraft, A6M or otherwise, were detected and intercepted farther and farther from their erstwhile targets. The farther out the intercept the longer one has to work them over, witness the Great Marianas Turkey Shoot.

40 A6Ms all at once over a US Carrier TG or TF? Not likely, if they did, who would be minding the store?

Please accept in the spirit offered, that I note your screen name refers to the German Navy, so perhaps you are more versed in the operations of that service. Apparently, from some of the statements you have made, your research materials on the Pacific War and, specifically, USN carrier operations, doctrine, and equipment are, perhaps, less than complete or overly simplified. You would do well to avail yourself of some of the more subject specific works.

R

[R Leonard]

Other folks playing aboard Shangri La whilst BoB Elder was putting his P-51 through its paces.
All USN photos
Syd Bottomley and his PBJ-1




And a couple more of Elder's P-51




Somewhere I've a shot of Charlie Lane and his F7F taken the same day, but a quick & dirty search did not turn it up.

Rich

[kriegsmarine221]

. just wondering. could the f8 bearcat outperform the mig-9 or mig-15?

[vanir]

The Russians definitely mistook the target - they thought they are attacking Fw 189...

Kozhedub the top scoring allied ace also had two Mustangs on his tally. They mistook La-7's for Focke wulfs and got mauled.

lol I've been doing a little research on the La-7 and from everything I've read, this would be an understatement. It was like every advantage of the La-5FN over the La-5 all over again, and triple Beresin-20mm on the centreline to boot. As it was the La-5FN ranks up there with any of the best late war models, the La-7 is one of those seriously underrated secrets too few seem to know a lot about. Thing was a damn monster all the way to 7000+m and climbed like a rocket at any altitude, not to mentioned out-turned anything short of a Yak.

[vanir]

For the original topic I have the last credited victory for the Luftwaffe Oberleutnant Gerhard Thyben flying probably a late production Fw-190D-9 (MW-50 fitment) with 4 staffel I/JG54, who shot down a Soviet Pe-2 dive bomber late on 8 May. On the same day Major Erich Hartmann shot down a Yak-9 in his Me-109K-4 somewhere near Prague (he was so effective a bounty was placed on his head and Russians referred to him as the "Black Devil" for his blackened prop spinner) and Oberleutnant Fritz Stehle from 2 staffel I/JG7 shot down a P-39 Airacobra (I'm guessing in Soviet service) in his Me-262 based probably near Berlin (Saatz if anyone can tell me where the hell that is).
The German surrender was signed 01:41 7 May (official ceasefire 00:01 9 May though only southern Germany/Prague wanted to go on being antsy about the Russians coming in through Hungary, and Brandenburg for the same reasons although through Poland...ie. the B'elorussian and Ukranian Fronts, whom were visiting some of the atrocity on the German civilian populace they had previously experienced).

As far as the discussion turn for carrier based models is concerned...well the F2A was a much better naval model than the P-40 for the design emphasis on navalised equipment (including pilot survival equipment, which was a big requirement for USN service, ie. frontally mounted fuel tanks behind the engine compartment and so on), but indeed compared to land based fighters it was not until the F4F that naval fighters really began to find an equivalent to land based counterparts. The F4F bested the P-40E in island based (informal) trials conducted during the war, which in fact suprised the USAAC pilots tremendously (they didn't think the comparatively sluggish Wildcat would make as good a dogfighter as it did, but it scored three for three in mock dogfights even with the speed disadvantage). As a fighter per se the F2A was regarded as unstable and worsened by its model 3 variant update (increased armouring and armament).

Early F4F models were actually fitted with the 9-cylinder Cyclone engine, requested by the French and turned over to the British as the Martlet Mk1. The F4F-3 ordered by the USN however had the 14-cylinder PW with two speed, two stage supercharging and tons of pilot survival equipment and armouring. The Wildcat really won the Pacific War on survivability, and definitely had a far, far better combat record than the Zero. Thing to remember here is not just recorded "kills" (which also mean seriously damaged aircraft) but how many pilots actually make it back on the deck following combat sorties. And in this realm the ratio Zero versus Wildcat would be something like 15-80%. The talk was if you were in a Zero and got hit at all, you were dead. In a Wildcat you were inconvenienced and had to turn home.

The amazing development of the Zero in 1941 was the fact that it could better contemporary US land based fighter performance. Its early, one-sided combat victories were mostly against the P-36 Hawk and a handful of P-40B/C types in Dutch and British service. Particularly against the Dutch the Zero performed far better than speculators had suggested capable of Japanese carrier based fighters, often fighting odds worse than 3 to 1 and coming out with victory scores better than 2 to 1. This theme standardised the war in the southern Pacific almost until 1943. Over Port Moresby the elite Japanese Naval Squadron based at Lae often overflew Allied airfields (American and Australian) performing aerobatics in an attempt to lure enemy aircraft into combat. As late as October 1943 the Ki-43 was still so hard to beat in dogfight agility it was only after a handful were captured by ground forces and restored to flying condition that effective tactics were developed to combat them (boom and zoom worked very well). This situation didn't apply so much in the Solomons however with the introduction of the F4U to Marines squadrons, which instantly turned the tables on any Japanese models with sheer overwhelming performance superiority, and the Lightning which was designed as a high altitude fighter and so used boom and zoom as a matter of course (coupled with a great speed advantage).

But...until 1944 Australians and the majority of Papua New Guinea based Allied forces were still soldiering on with the P-40E, M and N (until finally receiving P-51/P-47 for remaining Americans and the Mark VIII for RAAF...then the P-51 in 1945 for the RAAF but that was just after the war, too late to see service). New Zealanders were getting the F4U in 1944 but they were mostly taking up occupational duties in the Solomons, New Guinea was almost all Australian by this time and the Americans were onto the Marianas/Philippines.

Interestingly the RAAF got its hands on a few MkV spits in 1942 and had been anxiously awaiting something to combat Zero raids into Australian waters (eg. Darwin, escorting Betties ex Dutch East Indies), whilst the latest American aircraft assigned Australian northern defence duties were the P-40E.
The rumour was, from the Battle of Britain the Spitfire was the bee's knees. It was hot, could outmanoeuvre and outgun anything in the sky. So we got 'em and the Zero out-turned them like they were standing still. The MkVs were assigned land based duties and never even sent to New Guinea, in fact all of them were either sent to Canberra or used in the Northern territory only as trainers. It was better to have the P-40, for which plenty of spares were coming in from the US in active front line service in New Guinea.
Many RAAF vets recall the Merlin engine P-40s with affection though, even if in truth it's a little unjustified. It sort of "Britishised" the Kittyhawk but didn't really do that much for performance and lost some firepower. Later Allison engine models (P-40M and N) had as good altitude performance and kept the sextet of fifties (P-40F was cut down to four fifties and had the Merlin as a high performance experiment, mostly it wound up being used in Africa by the Yanks with MkV or MkIX and a bare handful of MkVIII Spits ex RAF flying top cover).

The later MkVIII Spit was a different story altogether. At altitude it trumped a Zero easy, especially the later types. Only a P-51D was better than a MkVIII for all round performance, being something like 50km/h faster at 8000m and with a damn sight better pilot awareness.

Another interesting thing was those P-40 models in early US service, it was never a USAAC requirement to have things like self sealing tanks or increased pilot armouring. The British requested this for RAF service and fostered the P-40B, which they still thought was useless in Europe as an interceptor so that in turn fostered the fighter-bomber P-40C. Of course British models often deleted the fifties and had just four brownings in the wings chambered for the British .303 cartridge, so early P-40s got the bad reputation that sort of stuck with the type even though the P-40E wasn't too bad for early 42, and the P-40F or M was pretty good for late 42 if you didn't have to climb too high.
P-39 was a winner though, if you could wrap your head around its see-saw piloting effect. Most couldn't and preferred to use it for ground strafing, but it ought to really trump the P-40 on every count.

[vanir]

. just wondering. could the f8 bearcat outperform the mig-9 or mig-15?

This was still a very early stage in jet engine development. The remanufactured BMW engines used in the MiG-9 had a very slow spool up time, whilst the illegally copied Rolls Royce in the MiG-15 had a centrifugal compressor that was very finite about altitude performance.
So on both counts, given the right circumstances, yes and given the wrong ones, no way. Dive on a MiG-9 going at low speed and try tight loops on the MiG-15 at low altitude. You could best them feeling rather surprised. But generally if you see one on the horizon and he knows you're there, call for help or bail out.
Corsairs and Seafuries recorded MiG jet kills in Korea, with similar performance to Bearcats. Early NKAF (and Chinese-Communist) fighters were exclusively Yak-9P, MiG-9 and Yak-15s. The MiG-15 came a little after hostilities began.

I'm going to waffle on a bit now, but I'm being subjective from here therefore and am perfectly open to correction by more qualified posters. Actually, I'm always open to correction by more qualified posters, I'm no real expert believe me, just an interested enthusiast.
The MiG-15 was a real threat but was being compared to contemporary US jet fighters in this, like the F-80, F-86 and F9F Panther. These early non-bypass axial turbines also had the long spool up time of the German engines and British axials. Postwar piston types like the later Corsairs, Seafury/Tempest Mk2 and Bearcat still had great low speed acceleration, turn rates and low altitude performance.
At medium altitude, in cruise you just couldn't beat a jet though. It's going to keep climbing at maximum performance all the way to 11000 metres or thereabouts if you've got your speed up and you just can't match that with a piston type, plus the high altitude performance in general of turbine engines is unmatched.
Most of the problem comes with airframe design and the expected speed parameters with which it's going to be used most effectively. For the jets it's around 800km/h and for piston types it's more like 600km/h at best. We're talking turning combat engagements here. Then you're looking at 2-6000m with a performance drop off in between or 3-11000m consistently, respectively. But this means the jets aren't generally as well designed for low altitude, agile engagements at low and intermediate speeds. They need a bit of speed up and come into their own at higher altitudes by comparison.

Second generation jets went for all out speed and altitude performance and moved towards BVR engagements. Third generation returned to low altitude transonic performance but by then engineering technology had overcome piston engine design in every way, at any altitude and under any conditions. An F-4 just trumps a Bearcat even if you've got Doogie Howser piloting on his thirteenth birthday.