Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
World War II Fighter Question  
User currently offlineBlackbird From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 5896 times:

Does anybody have any idea (guesstimates, actual figures etc) as to the maximum G-capability of fighters during the Second World-War were?


Blackbird

26 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineBengan From Sweden, joined Jul 2007, 43 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 5888 times:

I have a book on the FFVS J22 that quotes an unnamed P51 instructor saying
"I was never told the maximum allowable G-load on the J22 ... but I suspect that is was low. In the Mustang the limit was 10g and we routinely pulled 8,5-9g with it during combat"

The J22s G-limit was 6G

/Bengt


User currently offlineBlackbird From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 5885 times:

How the hell did they withstand that kind of G-load (8.5g - 9.0g routinely, and up to 10g) without blacking out? Did G-suits exist yet?


Blackbird


User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 5869 times:



Quoting Blackbird (Reply 2):
How the hell did they withstand that kind of G-load (8.5g - 9.0g routinely, and up to 10g) without blacking out? Did G-suits exist yet?

In the last couple years of the war British and American pilots were using them. I remeber Chuck Yeager talking about them in his book.


User currently offlineVzlet From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 835 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 5846 times:



Quoting Blackbird (Reply 2):
How the hell did they withstand that kind of G-load (8.5g - 9.0g routinely, and up to 10g) without blacking out?

It's not just the intensity that matters, but the duration as well.



"That's so stupid! If they're so secret, why are they out where everyone can see them?" - my kid
User currently offlineBlackbird From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 5793 times:

Vzlet,

So it was just quick bursts where they got to 8.5 or 9.0, and mostly they were doing less?


Blackbird
BTW: I remember hearing that machine guns often had problems jamming when fired at high-g's, at least in some cases due to the belt-links breaking (at least it happened on the F-8 Crusader in the 1960's) -- How come I've never heard of anything like this happening in the WW2 era (or even Korean war actually)? I have only heard mention of this happening in the early to mid-fifties...yet it must have happened before right?


User currently offlineKukkudrill From Malta, joined Dec 2004, 1123 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 5656 times:

I recall reading that the Spitfire was stressed for 10g too. The earliest Spits to have cannon installed also had problems with stoppages because wing flex in tight turns would constrict the ammo feed channels, which were already a tight fit for 20mm shells. The problem was fixed later on.


Make the most of the available light ... a lesson of photography that applies to life
User currently offlineGST From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2008, 930 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 5633 times:



Quoting Blackbird (Reply 5):

So it was just quick bursts where they got to 8.5 or 9.0, and mostly they were doing less?

Essentially yes, when you put an aircraft though that type of G for long periods of time without descending you will loose airspeed and stall pretty quickly.


User currently offlineBlackbird From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 5594 times:

Kukkudrill,

So the caliber of the bullet also plays a role in jamming problems related to G-forces? Is that the reason why post Korean-War fighters had a lot of problem with the jamming as they had larger guns (20 mm, vs the 12.7 mm of WW2 and Korea) -- or is it just because G's could be sustained longer post-Korea with more powerful fighter engines and guns were fired more at these higher G-forces?


Blackbird


User currently offlineKukkudrill From Malta, joined Dec 2004, 1123 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 5533 times:



Quoting Blackbird (Reply 8):
So the caliber of the bullet also plays a role in jamming problems related to G-forces? Is that the reason why post Korean-War fighters had a lot of problem with the jamming as they had larger guns (20 mm, vs the 12.7 mm of WW2 and Korea) -- or is it just because G's could be sustained longer post-Korea with more powerful fighter engines and guns were fired more at these higher G-forces?

Wish I had the knowledge to answer this, but I don't. All I know is that in the Spitfire's case the ammo feed channels were originally designed for .303 inch bullets and were a tight fit for 20mm, so wing flex in tight turns would literally trap the shells. Like I said the redesign of the wing solved the problem.

As to the rest, all I can say by way of speculation is that the bigger the calibre, the greater the weight that has to be pulled in towards the gun and high g conditions accentuate the weight difference. This means failures would be more likely with bigger calibres unless the belt feed mechanism and links are specially designed to cope with it (which may not have been the case in the 60s). The rate of fire could also be a contributing factor.



Make the most of the available light ... a lesson of photography that applies to life
User currently offlineBlackbird From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 5408 times:

Was the rate of fire for guns different in WW2, Korea, and Post Korea?

Blackbird


User currently offlineArt From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 3382 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 5352 times:



Quoting Blackbird (Reply 2):
How the hell did they withstand that kind of G-load (8.5g - 9.0g routinely, and up to 10g) without blacking out?

The Spitfire pilot I knew told me that he would be aware of his vision becoming impaired. I think he described it as 'greying out'. I guess that when your vision started going you eased off the G.


User currently offlineKukkudrill From Malta, joined Dec 2004, 1123 posts, RR: 4
Reply 12, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 5292 times:



Quoting Blackbird (Reply 10):
Was the rate of fire for guns different in WW2, Korea, and Post Korea?

Don't think you can compare machine-guns with cannon due to the different calibres involved. But taking cannon you can certainly see an increase over time:

Hispano 20mm cannon as used in WW2: c. 750 rounds per minute
Colt-Browning Mk 12 20mm as used in the F-8: 1,000 rpm
Mauser BK-27 27mm as used in the Tornado and Typhoon: 1,700 rpm

I've deliberately listed single-barrel weapons only to compare like with like. Multi-barrel Gatling-type weapons are capable of much higher rates of fire: the M61A1 20mm as used in F-15s and F-16s can do 6,000 rpm (all info from Wikipedia).



Make the most of the available light ... a lesson of photography that applies to life
User currently offlineBlackbird From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 5225 times:

Kukkudrill,

Okay, so refire rate along with caliber both went up. And I guess this combination would make jams more likely at high-G's?

I made an observation looking at footage taken from WW2 and Korea... while there were some tight turns pulled, it seemed as if the pilots were firing the guns while during lower G's than they do now... for all I know it was probably because they couldn't sustain the high-G's like they can now, though I could be wrong...


Blackbird


User currently offlineKukkudrill From Malta, joined Dec 2004, 1123 posts, RR: 4
Reply 14, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 5194 times:



Quoting Blackbird (Reply 13):
Okay, so refire rate along with caliber both went up. And I guess this combination would make jams more likely at high-G's?

I expect yes, if all other things are equal. Of course other things are never equal: some guns are simply more reliable than others. The gun used by the F-8 seems to have been especially prone to problems.



Make the most of the available light ... a lesson of photography that applies to life
User currently offlineBlackbird From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 5177 times:

Kukkudrill,

Oh, the F-8's guns were prone to problems?


Blackbird


User currently offlineEpten From Macedonia, joined Sep 2007, 184 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 5142 times:



Quoting Blackbird (Reply 2):
How the hell did they withstand that kind of G-load (8.5g - 9.0g routinely, and up to 10g) without blacking out?

Not only they did black out, but sometimes deliberately blacking out was the only mean of surviving a superior aircraft on your tail. I remember reading from an P-40 fighter pilot. He says that when engaged with a more powerful and faster Zero, he would dive to gain speed and then pull so much Gs that anyone trying to follow him will black out as well. This tactics, he says, saved his life more than once.


User currently offlineBlackbird From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 5136 times:

Epten,

Yikes...


Blackbird


User currently offlineRwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2346 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 5080 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Epten (Reply 16):
Not only they did black out, but sometimes deliberately blacking out was the only mean of surviving a superior aircraft on your tail. I remember reading from an P-40 fighter pilot. He says that when engaged with a more powerful and faster Zero, he would dive to gain speed and then pull so much Gs that anyone trying to follow him will black out as well. This tactics, he says, saved his life more than once.

I have to express some doubts about this. Coming out of G-LOC is not quick. You are quite disoriented and foggy for a while (several tens of seconds to several minutes), and will have minimal situational awareness. If you did this, and the other pilot didn't G-LOC, you'd be dead meat. All that would have to happen is that the pursuer not fly that tight a turn, and he has you. Or if there was another opposing fighter around, you'd be in real trouble.

Doing something like that would have to be absolutely last ditch, and even then it’s unlikely to work.

Perhaps somewhat more realistically I could see deliberate trying to get the pursuer to G-LOC, which might be possible if you had a G-Suit and they didn't (AFAIK, G-Suits were not widely used by US aircrews in WWII), you had a better seating position (more reclined), or you had a few seconds to prepare (the "straining" maneuver) to increase your tolerance. Then you're relying on the other guy to put himself in that position.


User currently offlineBlackbird From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 5071 times:

Epten,

Rwessel makes a good point, I'm guessing the idea was that the P-40 pilot would get himself almost blacked-out... like his vision would be almost completely tunnelled or just black, but he'd be conscious. The other guy behind him if he had no G-suit, or might just over do it and black-out completely...


Rwessel,

When did pilots start performing that "straining" maneuver to improve G-resistance?


Blackbird


User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 20, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 4997 times:



Quoting Epten (Reply 16):
I remember reading from an P-40 fighter pilot. He says that when engaged with a more powerful and faster Zero, he would dive to gain speed and then pull so much Gs that anyone trying to follow him will black out as well. This tactics, he says, saved his life more than once.

Blackbird, like you, I'm working from 'theory.' If I'd actually had the job of flying the (distinctly 'below-average'') P40 against Zeroes, I reckon that I'd probably have bailed out (even over the trackless Pacific) rather than take the sods on.

Though on the other hand - a personal memory - I still recall being trained to take on the (AK47-armed) Russian infantry with virtually the self-same bolt-action Lee-Enfield ('No. 4 Rifle') that my old man (a veteran of a rifle regiment) got issued with in late 1917. He was a 'good old guy' - he laughed like a drain when I showed it to him, said, "You poor bugger - at least the one that they gave to me was brand-new, not all scratched and worn like like this one. Bet the bore's halfway worn out already. Did they tell you that it isn't the gun that counts, it's the bloke behind it? That's what the bastards told US.....It's crap....."

Same applies to my late father-in-law. Like me, he finished up in the artillery. Got two days 'confined to barracks' for even suggesting, during a lecture, that the 1940 British two-pounder anti-tank gun might not bother the German panzers much - except at what they all called - the British odd-ball sense of humour being the same then as it still is, up to the present day - "VCR'...........

"Victoria Cross Range'...........



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlinePhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 4982 times:



Quoting Blackbird (Thread starter):
Does anybody have any idea (guesstimates, actual figures etc) as to the maximum G-capability of fighters during the Second World-War were?

Again, you amaze me with the questions you ask and further amaze me with a complete lack of searching on your part. A simple search of google would give you this result in 0.49 seconds.

http://mustanghighflight.com/planespecs.html

Remember, Google is your friend!!!!


User currently offlineFerrypilot From New Zealand, joined Sep 2006, 897 posts, RR: 3
Reply 22, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 4914 times:



Quoting Bengan (Reply 1):
In the Mustang the limit was 10g and we routinely pulled 8,5-9g with it during combat"

Sounds like B... S... to me. ...I'd be very surprised if many guys were deliberately trying to pull more than 6g in combat manoeuvres. More than that and I think it would have been accidental.
...Personally I start to black out at 6g and I believe that is about average without a G suit, unless you deliberately train yourself as competition aerobatic pilots do to take more.


User currently offlineDeskflier From Sweden, joined Jan 2007, 537 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (5 years 11 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 4574 times:



Quoting Epten (Reply 16):
He says that when engaged with a more powerful and faster Zero, he would dive to gain speed and then pull so much Gs that anyone trying to follow him will black out as well. This tactics, he says, saved his life more than once.

The Zero would more likely tear its wings off. Japanese fighters (Zero, Hayabusa) from the early part of WW2 was very lightly built, often without armour, and frequently equipped with a main wing-bearer that was under-dimensioned. Nakajima had to re-engineer the wing of the Ki-43 Hayabusa to cure it from the wing-falling-off-during-combat-disease, which transformed the Ki-43, not only to a plane that could maneuver hard without losing its wings, but to a fighter-bomber capable of carrying two 250kg (550lb) bombs. The problem with wings falling off became very visible after the introduction of the Fowler-type combat flap, introduced in response to Imperial Army pilots complaints of poor maneuverablilty, especially compared with their previous mount, the Ki-27.



How can anyone not fly, when we live at a time when we can fly?
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (5 years 11 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 4452 times:



Quoting Rwessel (Reply 18):
I have to express some doubts about this. Coming out of G-LOC is not quick. You are quite disoriented and foggy for a while (several tens of seconds to several minutes), and will have minimal situational awareness. If you did this, and the other pilot didn't G-LOC, you'd be dead meat. All that would have to happen is that the pursuer not fly that tight a turn, and he has you. Or if there was another opposing fighter around, you'd be in real trouble.

Not always that long..



25 Ferrypilot : Just out of curiosity I put a protractor on the screen during the two turns in that video above. ...Looks like 75-80degrees of bank and so assuming th
26 Soon7x7 : A buddy of mine has a P51 and P-40. He took me in P-51 for an hour. We consistently pulled 6 as I could see the accelerometer...in other aircraft 6 s
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic World War II Fighter Question
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Best World War II Fighter posted Wed Jan 9 2002 04:38:07 by Dandy_don
Question: What Was World's First Turbofan Fighter? posted Fri Dec 21 2007 19:31:57 by FlagshipAZ
SR-71- The World's Fastest Jet Fighter... posted Mon Nov 26 2007 12:31:41 by MadameConcorde
Minutes Away From World War III In 1995. posted Wed May 18 2005 22:32:47 by Thom@s
World War 2 Trivia posted Tue May 3 2005 01:09:57 by Waukewan
Gulf War II Air Recon Imagery And The Media posted Wed Mar 26 2003 12:55:38 by Tomh
Gulf War II Starting Small posted Wed Feb 12 2003 18:20:30 by Heavymetal
Top Guns: World's Meanest Fighter Aircraft? posted Tue Apr 29 2008 15:57:24 by Comorin
Single Seat Vs Double-Seat Fighter (Cold-War Era) posted Sat Dec 8 2007 15:24:23 by Blackbird
Fighter Jet Fly-by Question posted Mon Nov 6 2006 05:37:12 by Chi-town
Fighter Jet Fly-by Question posted Mon Nov 6 2006 05:37:12 by Chi-town

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format