Best "general purpose" prop fighter also capable of best high altitude performance

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

BarnOwlLover

Staff Sergeant
926
324
Nov 3, 2022
Mansfield, Ohio, USA
This does kind of lean towards late war, since this implies the use of a two stage supercharger essentially. Also, I'm not sure of the Me-262, but early British jets like the Vampire were better performers as far as speed (and maybe climb) at low altitude vs higher altitudes.

This also sort of reminds me a bit of a thread where there's a list of the fastest fighters at sea level/very low altitude. Oddly, the P-51H scored highest there (424 mph at SL on WEP, 413 max dry rating), though it had basically a higher altitude rated engine. This is where Mustang and Merlin/engine experts can weigh in, but I do remember someone (maybe drgondog) saying that the Packard V-1650-9 and 9A were strengthened -3 engines (the high alt. rated Packard Merlin) to run higher boost levels for longer, and in the case of the -9, run ADI. The -7 engine was rated for slightly lower max alt., but with more evenly distributed performance. It would seem that the -9 and 9A was trying to combine the low and medium/medium-high performance of the -7, the high alt performance of the -3, and build upon it in both instances.

Just for example, the P-51H, as mentioned, was capable of well over 400 mph at sea level, but depending on weight and load out, had over a 43K ft. service ceiling. The XP-82/P-82B also had over a 43,000 ft service ceiling depending on load out on both engines (and over 28,000 on one engine).

But were there other "go anywhere" fighters as far as altitude went that did well just about anywhere they'd be encountered? With the two stage Merlin Spitfires, I'd say that it depends on the variant (engine spec, clipped vs normal vs long span wings), as well as the Spitfire 14 as far as war-time variants (but a lot of them had clipped wings for low/medium alt. use).

There was also the Ta-152 that was capable of excellent performance at high altitudes, but was often used as a GP fighter at lower altitudes. Some accounts suggest that it was at least decent (as far as German fighters) at low and medium to medium-high alt.. Others suggested that the Fw-190D would've been better suited for such combat vs the Ta-152.

But what where the best fighters at high alt. that did well everywhere else, or "normal" alt. rated fighters that still held their own high up?
 
The P-51H was not over 400 mph at sea level.

The players are well-known. Stick with pistons so you at least have a chance at comparisons. The jets were faster, but lost out on maneuverability and range for sure. Tough to fight an Me 262 with a Tempest, but also tough the other way since it would be hard to get it in your sights if the opponent is decent.

Tempest, P-51H, P-47M/N, Ta 152, Fw 190D, F4U-4, Spitfire XIV/21. Can't neglectthe P-51D, either. It was 95% of the H on most missions.

I'm not a big Ta 152 fan, but it has much more to do with the state of maturity of the population rather than the potential of the airframe. The others, at least, made it into production in quantities greater than the actual flying Ta 152s. They built 120 Spit 21s anyway and 287 Spit 22s (a 21 with a bubble canopy). The Spit 24 is about like the Ta 152 in that they only built 54 of them, but the change from the 22 was only to the fuel capacity, so it was more mature than the quantity suggested by itself.

I'd say any are good airplanes and the choice, if you had one ... unlikely in the extreme ..., would depend more on the mission than on anything else. You'd need to take into account the range, the objective, expected opposition, etc.
 
Last edited:
Also, I'm not sure of the Me-262, but early British jets like the Vampire were better performers as far as speed (and maybe climb) at low altitude vs higher altitudes.
The Me262's top speed was achieved at higher altitudes, as was the P-80 and Meteor Mk.III - side note: when checking the Meteor Specs at Wiki, they list the post-war Meteor F.8 specs, not wartime Mk.III Specs.

You'll find that most jets will have a higher top speed at upper altitudes.
 
The P-80A was fastest at 20,000 - 25,000 feet, and most early jets were, too. Most also did not have the ceiling of the late pistons and were basically out of oomph at about 40,000 feet.

Let's see, service ceilings ...
P-80A: 45,000 feet.
Meteor III: 40,000 feet.
Me 262A: 37,570 feet.
He 162: 39,000 feet.
Vampire F.3: 43,500 feet.

So, they weren't exactly high fliers and the speed dropped off above about 25,000 feet.
 
According to this thread:


And this Wright Field test report:


The P-51H was a 400+ mph plane at SL. Granted, the overall top speed and climb on the Wright Field report seems off (given that SAC and manual documents list top speed as 470-475 mph depending on load out for combat-type missions, and there's the whole 487 mph clean in interceptor mode), and I'm not sure where the OP in that thread got the 682kmph (about 424 mph) figure from. Though those figures were all with 90" Hg WEP with ADI. Also, the Rolls-Royce Mustang III engine test bed with a Merlin 100 reportedly did about 410 at SL in Rolls-Royce/RAE testing.

Then again, World War II aircraft performance has the reports on the Merlin 100 equipped P-51B (Mustang III), and a similar aircraft with a Merlin 113 in the Gruenhagen book on the P-51 had achieved 454 mph at 30,000 ft and 414 mph at 40,000 ft. It should be noted that the Merlin 100 and 113 were approved for 81" dry (none were to my knowledge fitted with ADI).

But then again, it seems at lower alt, on 75" or less, the P-51H wasn't much faster than the D model on similar boost/engine power (and the Merlin P-51s weren't really any faster than the Allison powered ones at lower alt. until higher boost levels were approved).

I'm also well aware that at higher alt. that most plans do/should go faster, even with reduced engine power, because the thinner air imparts less drag on the airframe. Also, the XP-72 was pretty fast at high alt (490mph at I believe 25,000 ft) and low (387 mph at SL) with a service ceiling of at least 42K.

I guess maybe I should ask what makes a good high alt fighter without sacrificing low alt/medium alt grunt?
 
FWIW the speed envelope graph for the F-51H SAC from March 1949 shows the following speeds at WEP with ADI.

471 mph at 22,700 ft
446 mph at 9,000 ft
410 mph at sea level

F-51H speed graph Mar'49.png
 
FWIW the speed envelope graph for the F-51H SAC from March 1949 shows the following speeds at WEP with ADI.

471 mph at 22,700 ft
446 mph at 9,000 ft
410 mph at sea level

View attachment 765462
This graph is interesting in that it shows that by then military aviation was in the process of switching to measuring speed in knots rather than mph. Yet someone has felt it necessary to print a few specific speeds in mph on top of the graph (though I guess that could have been done much later, given it seems to be a much different font from the original used in the graph).
 
So is the answer more boost/more power across the board regardless of altitude? That much seems obvious but how do you get a plane to perform well at both say sea level to 5000 ft vs 30,000 ft? I know that supercharger gearing and drive has a lot to do with it, but is it possible to get one without taking away from the other (I also know that two stage, multi or variable speed superchargers were a big help here).
 
So is the answer more boost/more power across the board regardless of altitude? That much seems obvious but how do you get a plane to perform well at both say sea level to 5000 ft vs 30,000 ft? I know that supercharger gearing and drive has a lot to do with it, but is it possible to get one without taking away from the other (I also know that two stage, multi or variable speed superchargers were a big help here).
I guess you can have things that are good at any altitude. Like a low drag design such as the P-51. And then you have things that help at some altitudes and are a negative at other altitudes. Like the huge wing and pressurized cockpit on the Ta 152H are good for high altitude, but detract from performance at lower altitude.

Multi-stage and multi speed supercharging is probably necessary for good performance at high altitude, yet has a relatively modest weight penalty. So probably what you want in a general purpose plane that is supposed to do well at many different altitudes.
 
IMHO - From my own personal experiences from the ground, my vote goes to the aircraft that saved my own personal bacon more than once, the Douglas A-1 Skyraider.
· Maximum speed: 322 mph (518 km/h, 280 kn) at 18,000 ft (5,500 m)
· Cruise speed: 198 mph (319 km/h, 172 kn)
· Range: 1,316 mi (2,118 km, 1,144 nmi)
· Service ceiling: 28,500 ft (8,700 m)
· Rate of climb: 2,850 ft/min (14.5 m/s

skyraiderWP.jpg


(16)%20Skyraiders%20bomb%20run%202.jpg


A1ESkyrader.jpg
 
The USAF was deeply in love with its JETS so it was always a battle to get them to send the lowly prop jobs. Even though U.S. Navy Skyraiders had used their cannon to shoot down two VPAF MiG-17 jet fighters.
The first, on 20 June 1965 by Lt. Clinton B. Johnson and Lt. Charles W. Hartman III was the first gun kill of the Vietnam War. The second was on 9 October 1966 by Lt. (jg) William T. Patton.
 
The climb level for the P-51H seems off, even though it aligns with another report taken at 67" This seems to be down to boost levels (" Hg MAP), weight, and such. It does seem that like for the P-51B and D for sure that 75" and at combat weight or basic fighter weight.

This is I believe from a SAC document for the P-51H that shows the difference between 80" and 90":


And an oddity here, is why 75" isn't used as a rating here when the -7 Merlin was rated for that:

 
re
Here's one that shows differently.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/Comparative_Fighter_Performance.jpg

Both from the same site! Go figure, hujh.

It is interesting. The chart you link to above for the P-51H is from 18 December 1944 (so a prototype or pre-production airframe) running at 70"Hg without ADI at 9530 lbs TOGW (with? without? DT/bomb racks), and the ACA Vmax altitudes (31,500/17,500 ft) are considerably higher than for the later F-51H SAC chart I posted above, which is from 1949 running at 80" with ADI at a Combat weight of 9430 lbs with DT/bomb racks. So the 1949 F-51H is running with significantly more power at a 100 lb lighter weight, with ACA Vmax at considerably lower altitudes (22,700/9,000 ft) than the 1944 P-51H.
 
Last edited:
Also, as far as I know, a P-51H (there was no XP-51H) didn't fly until Feb. 1945. So I have to admit that the point you just brought up is confusing unless we're looking at estimated or anticipated performance.

There were also no NA-117 (P-51H design study) airframes built, only a mock up, and the XP-51F/G were considered ultimately by NAA and the USAAF to be the P-51H prototype/pre-series aircraft. As mentioned, the first P-51H that was built and airworthy wasn't flown until early Feb. 1945.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back