# What Criteria should be used for determining the best land based piston fighter



## Lighthunmust (May 18, 2011)

First off if the Mods feel the way I am presenting this topic is not sufficiently new in approach I will understand it being closed.

This is purely a hypothetical situation in that what is being chosen would be what you would choose if you had to begin fighting WW2 again on September 1, 1939 with any of the aircraft available at any time during 1939-45 (DOES NOT NEED TO BE IN PRODUCTION BEGINNING IN 1939). The Fighter you choose would be the one to arm your air force if you could choose only one aircraft type and it must be adequate for all missions and superior in some missions.

Listed below in no particular order of priority are my suggestions for what must be considered in determining the best piston engined land based fighter aircraft for WW2. Please feel free to post any additional criteria you believe is required. When sufficient criteria is agreed upon I would like members to determine the aircraft they believe to be the best match.

1. It must be possible to produce in sufficient numbers.

2. Its flight characteristics must be benevolent enough to allow inexperienced pilots to gain experience without frequently making fatal mistakes.

3. Its flight characteristics must be benevolent enough to allow experienced pilots who are disabled from fatigue or wounds to fly without making fatal mistakes.

4. It must have average or better than average ease of maintenance.

5. It must have average or better than average comfort to reduce pilot fatigue.

6. It must have average or better than average ability to continue to fight and fly after receiving battle damage.

7. It must have average or better than average primary armament.

8. It must have average or better than average ability to be modified to use secondary armaments.

9. It must have average or better than average ability to be modified to fight at night.

10. It must have the speed, maneuverability, armament, and resistance to catastrophic damage to allow a pilot with skill equal to his opponents to have an equal or superior chance to survive in a one on one fight by victory or retreat.

ADDITIONAL NOTES:

SEE POST #100 FOR ADDITIONAL CRITERIA POSTED IN THIS THREAD BY MEMBERS

SEE POST #100 FOR FIGHTERS SUGGESTED OR CHOSEN BY MEMBERS

AS OF POST #100 THE MOST SIGNIFICANT POST IS #72 BY SHORTROUND6 AND IS AN EXCELLENT EXAMPLE OF REPLYING TO THIS THREAD

READ POST #161


----------



## krieghund (May 18, 2011)

Need to define the operational requirement, Bomber escort, Counter Air, Fast Ass CAS or interceptor, etc. These will also have a bearing on the final outcome of the design.


----------



## drgondog (May 18, 2011)

It must consistently prevail in fighter versus fighter contest assuming equal pilot skill. That is the fundamental metric.


----------



## fastmongrel (May 18, 2011)

Dont think such a plane existed in WWII not sure if it has ever existed a warplane in fact any plane is a series of compromises. The least worst on balance is about as good as it gets.


----------



## Readie (May 18, 2011)

May I venture to suggest the Hawker Hurricane?
It hits a lot of the points.
Cheers
John


----------



## fastmongrel (May 18, 2011)

drgondog said:


> It must consistently prevail in fighter versus fighter contest assuming equal pilot skill. That is the fundamental metric.



Agree anything else is a bonus.


----------



## Lighthunmust (May 18, 2011)

krieghund said:


> Need to define the operational requirement, Bomber escort, Counter Air, Fast Ass CAS or interceptor, etc. These will also have a bearing on the final outcome of the design.



This criteria is included with the statement "The Fighter you choose would be the one to arm your air force if you could choose only one aircraft type and it must be adequate for all missions and superior in some missions."


----------



## tomo pauk (May 18, 2011)

Out of all piston-engined planes that were produced from Sept 1st '1939 - 1945, we can choose either Spitfire or Bf-109. So I'd choose Spitfire.


----------



## Lighthunmust (May 18, 2011)

drgondog said:


> It must consistently prevail in fighter versus fighter contest assuming equal pilot skill. That is the fundamental metric.


 
It will never get the opportunity to "prevail" unless the other listed criteria are consistently met over the course of many engagements and various missions. Remember the criteria is to decide how could prevail consistently.



Readie said:


> May I venture to suggest the Hawker Hurricane?
> It hits a lot of the points.
> Cheers
> John


 
Really, the Hurricane? Of the criteria listed it is equal or superior to a Spitfire, Mustang, FW190, Lagg, Macchi, etc., etc. Why?



fastmongrel said:


> Agree anything else is a bonus.


 
See reply to original quote.



tomo pauk said:


> Out of all piston-engined planes that were produced from Sept 1st '1939 - 1945, we can choose either Spitfire or Bf-109. So I'd choose Spitfire.


 I think you may want to give this a little more analysis. Bf109 losses due to pilot error were so extremely high due to its landing gear that alone may be reason for elimination, amongst other reasons. More 109s made than anything else and still not enough. Spitfire on the other hand is meets average or better than average in many criteria, but may be below average in others that are of equal or at least significant value.

Some of you made quick choices. Using the ten criteria I listed and the specified need to perform all missions, please explain your choices. And again I ask that you add other criteria you think is important, but not something that is a part of what has been listed or a statement of the ultimate mission to consistently prevail. Remember it must perform all missions: fighterbomber, armed photo recce, intercept, escort, nightfighter, etc.



fastmongrel said:


> Dont think such a plane existed in WWII not sure if it has ever existed a warplane in fact any plane is a series of compromises. The least worst on balance is about as good as it gets.


 
Yes, "the least worst on balance" may be "about as good as it gets" and that is what I am asking. I think there is an aircraft that may be better than all the rest using the criteria listed. Lets determine what it is. Any ideas?


----------



## tomo pauk (May 18, 2011)

Lighthunmust said:


> ...
> I think you may want to give this a little more analysis. Bf109 losses due to pilot error were so extremely high due to its landing gear that alone may be reason for elimination, amongst other reasons. More 109s made than anything else and still not enough. Spitfire on the other hand is meets average or better than average in many criteria, but may be below average in others that are of equal or at least significant value.



?? 
Should I/we contemplate Hawker Sea Fury (the one with Centaurus, from 1945) for 1939?


----------



## davebender (May 18, 2011)

A critical issue for everyone except the USA. Germany was able to produce 30,000 Me-109s and 20,000 Fw-190s because both aircraft were relatively inexpensive.


----------



## Lighthunmust (May 18, 2011)

tomo pauk said:


> ??
> Should I/we contemplate Hawker Sea Fury (the one with Centaurus, from 1945) for 1939?


It is not a land based fighter but certainly could be used as one. Why not? Apply the criteria and compare it to something comparable, like a P-47N or F8F or FW190D or Late mark Spitfire or P-51H. My first impression is that it is less than average due to maintenance issues.



davebender said:


> A critical issue for everyone except the USA. Germany was able to produce 30,000 Me-109s and 20,000 Fw-190s because both aircraft were relatively inexpensive.


 I think this issue is somewhat covered by "1. It must be possible to produce in sufficient numbers." Production cost is certainly important, and may be part of the reason for the production of the Mustang since it was cheaper than the 38 and 47. However, in a countries struggle for life or death cost can be largely negated by deficit spending and sacrifice of other budgeted items. Part of the reason for 30,000 109s is due to not have much else as good to produce.


----------



## tomo pauk (May 18, 2011)

Lighthunmust said:


> It is not a land based fighter but certainly could be used as one. Why not? Apply the criteria and compare it to something comparable, like a P-47N or F8F or FW190D or Late mark Spitfire or P-51H. My first impression is that it is less than average due to maintenance issues.


 
The Fury was just an example of a fighter from 1945 contemplated in 1939 - no point in doing that. I'll apply that for P-47N, Bearcat the rest: no point.
Now, if you want a discussion about the plane that was *in production* from Sept 1939, let me/us know.


----------



## Lighthunmust (May 18, 2011)

tomo pauk said:


> The Fury was just an example of a fighter from 1945 contemplated in 1939 - no point in doing that. I'll apply that for P-47N, Bearcat the rest: no point.
> Now, if you want a discussion about the plane that was *in production* from Sept 1939, let me/us know.


The original posting states"This is purely a hypothetical situation in that what is being chosen would be what you would choose if you had to begin fighting WW2 again on September 1, 1939 with any of the aircraft available at any time during 1939-45. Being in production on 9-1-39 is not necessary. Please re-read the original posting.


----------



## Shortround6 (May 18, 2011)

Lighthunmust said:


> The original posting states"This is purely a hypothetical situation in that what is being chosen would be what you would choose if you had to begin fighting WW2 again on September 1, 1939 with any of the aircraft available at any time during 1939-45. Being in production on 9-1-39 is not necessary. Please re-read the original posting.



given the advance in technology in those 6 years it is a bit like asking which computer or cell phone do you want that was available from 2005 to 2011.
I doubt very much if anybody is going to take the 2005 models.


----------



## Lighthunmust (May 18, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> given the advance in technology in those 6 years it is a bit like asking which computer or cell phone do you want that was available from 2005 to 2011.
> I doubt very much if anybody is going to take the 2005 models.


I am glad that someone other than me stated the obvious. So what 1945 version of a piston fighter aircraft would you choose and why is it better than its contemporaries? I know which one I think is the right answer, but I would like to hear some answers and explanations from other members. I don't want to bias responses and I don't want emotion based dismissals of my choice.


----------



## fastmongrel (May 19, 2011)

Martin Baker MB 5 excellent performance, range, armament, with a very reliable engine and superb pilot view. It was designed to be easily built using simple jigs and was to be built in sections allowing easy transport and damage repair. 

Martin-Baker MB 5 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

However it was a cavalry sabre, beautiful and efficent but no longer needed on the battlefield.


----------



## davebender (May 19, 2011)

I disagree. 

Weapon cost is a reflection of material requirements and labor requirements. Low cost means you use less of these scarce resources.


----------



## Readie (May 19, 2011)

Lighthunmust said:


> Really, the Hurricane? Of the criteria listed it is equal or superior to a Spitfire, Mustang, FW190, Lagg, Macchi, etc., etc. Why?
> 
> 1. It must be possible to produce in sufficient numbers. It was
> 
> ...


----------



## Shortround6 (May 19, 2011)

Readie said:


> Not a quick choice.
> To answer your thread the Hurricane ticks all your boxes for the early part of WW2. Obviously it won't compare to much later fighters. But, as power and weight increased so the ease of flying decreased. There is probabily an exponential graph to show this.
> Cheers
> John


 
I don't know, I kind of like the idea of dozens of squadrons of Hawker Tempest IIs blasting hapless He 111s out of the sky in the BoB in the summer of 1940.


----------



## Lighthunmust (May 19, 2011)

davebender said:


> I disagree.
> 
> Weapon cost is a reflection of material requirements and labor requirements. Low cost means you use less of these scarce resources.


For both the Allies and the Axis material and labor requirements for production of aircraft was not the primary problem. The Germans had far more Fighters than pilots and fuel to enable their use. The same is true of the Japanese. If given a choice do you think Goering, if he knew what we know today, would have preferred 30K Bf-109s or 20K P-47s? Remember you are going to lose 10K of those Bf-109s to landing gear induced accidents. With the expensive P-47 he would have better pilot protection meaning more returning to battle, much easier armament logistics, and greater ability to evade P-51s and destroy bombers.



Readie said:


> Lighthunmust said:
> 
> 
> > Really, the Hurricane? Of the criteria listed it is equal or superior to a Spitfire, Mustang, FW190, Lagg, Macchi, etc., etc. Why?
> ...


----------



## tomo pauk (May 19, 2011)

Could it really be so that Tempest II performed better than Hurricane? I find it hard to swallow.


----------



## davparlr (May 19, 2011)

tomo pauk said:


> Could it really be so that Tempest II performed better than Hurricane? I find it hard to swallow.


 
I'm a bit confused by this comment. The Tempest II was one of the most powerful and best raw performance aircraft of WWII with a top speed at SL of 416 mph and 4700 ft/min climb. It was clearly superior to the Tempest V which was a pretty good performer itself.

Maybe you were thinking of the Tempest I, or assumed the Tempest II was something less than the Tempest V, that could be confusing?


----------



## Shortround6 (May 19, 2011)

I think you missed the sarcasm


----------



## Readie (May 19, 2011)

Please read my thread chaps..I offer the Hurricane as an early WW2 fighter not a competitor to the Tempest.
Cheers
John


----------



## Lighthunmust (May 19, 2011)

Readie said:


> Please read my thread chaps..I offer the Hurricane as an early WW2 fighter not a competitor to the Tempest.
> Cheers
> John


 Please re-read my original post that started this thread. The topic is not about the best early WW2 fighter. The topic is about hypothetically re-fighting WW2 with the best fighter available at anytime during 1939-45. Clearly the Hurricane is not that fighter! The Hurricane has many fine attributes that some fighters with higher top speed, faster climb, higher speed at altitude, and longer range may not have had, but it also has a top speed, time to climb, speed at altitude, and range that are so outclassed that it is not a contender many would chose.


----------



## GrauGeist (May 19, 2011)

If I had to choose a fighter that falls along the proposed criteria, I'd have to go with a machine along the lines of the P-47.

While it may not have been one of the least expensive to manufacture, it more than delivered on it's ability to adapt to multi-role requirements giving you more bang for your buck. 

It was a solid aircraft to fly, it protected it's pilot well and put serious hurt on any enemy aircraft that had the misfortune to find itself in the it's gunsights. It was well known to absorb battle damage and remain flyable, and there were plenty of instances where the pilot was seriously injured and yet managed to get back to England safely.

Another virtue about the P-47, was that it remained upgradable through the war's end as technology advanced keeping it at the leading edge of the fight.


----------



## Lighthunmust (May 20, 2011)

GrauGeist said:


> If I had to choose a fighter that falls along the proposed criteria, I'd have to go with a machine along the lines of the P-47.
> 
> While it may not have been one of the least expensive to manufacture, it more than delivered on it's ability to adapt to multi-role requirements giving you more bang for your buck.
> 
> ...


It certainly did remain upgradable. If I am not mistaken the heavier P-47N had a faster rate of roll than the lighter P-47C/Ds, in addition to increased range and speed. Of course there was never the chance to really find out what the ultimate P-47 upgrade would have done, that being the XP-72. The XP-72 was to the P-47 what the P-51H was to the P-51D.


----------



## Freebird (May 20, 2011)

Lighthunmust said:


> Please re-read my original post that started this thread. The topic is not about the best early WW2 fighter. The topic is about hypothetically re-fighting WW2 with the best fighter available at anytime during 1939-45.


 
Kind of a strange hypothesis.  Why stop at 1945? Why not fight WWII with Phantoms or Fulcrums? 

I would suppose that the best WWII fighter for multi-purpose use would be the late model Corsair, range, speed, payload, armament.
(It was a land based fighter before it was a carrier one)

The idea does make for a strange WWII, using advanced aircraft in '39 - '40.

What would your opponent be using?

Corsairs vs Me109Es?


----------



## ctrian (May 20, 2011)

1.	Performance (speed ,roll rate,acceleration ,climb rate etc)
2.	Cost
3.	Durability 
4.	Stability
5.	Firepower
6.	Visibility from cockpit
7.	Range
8.	Serviceability 
9.	Radio
10.	Gunsight 
11.	Automated controls
12.	Etc etc etc


----------



## Shortround6 (May 20, 2011)

freebird said:


> Kind of a strange hypothesis.  Why stop at 1945? Why not fight WWII with Phantoms or Fulcrums?
> 
> Corsairs vs Me109Es?



Phantoms all the way:
File:FH-1 CVB-42 landing NAN9 46.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hey, the Prototype flew in Jan 1945.


----------



## Readie (May 20, 2011)

Lighthunmust said:


> Please re-read my original post that started this thread. The topic is not about the best early WW2 fighter. The topic is about hypothetically re-fighting WW2 with the best fighter available at anytime during 1939-45. Clearly the Hurricane is not that fighter! The Hurricane has many fine attributes that some fighters with higher top speed, faster climb, higher speed at altitude, and longer range may not have had, but it also has a top speed, time to climb, speed at altitude, and range that are so outclassed that it is not a contender many would chose.


 
Everyone is entitled to an opinion.


----------



## tomo pauk (May 20, 2011)

davparlr said:


> I'm a bit confused by this comment. The Tempest II was one of the most powerful and best raw performance aircraft of WWII with a top speed at SL of 416 mph and 4700 ft/min climb. It was clearly superior to the Tempest V which was a pretty good performer itself.
> 
> Maybe you were thinking of the Tempest I, or assumed the Tempest II was something less than the Tempest V, that could be confusing?


 
Sarcasm, David


----------



## davebender (May 20, 2011)

Is the airframe large enough to a accomodate new engines, weapons and larger fuel tanks? If not then you must immediately begin design of a follow-on aircraft.


----------



## Lighthunmust (May 20, 2011)

freebird said:


> Kind of a strange hypothesis.  Why stop at 1945? Why not fight WWII with Phantoms or Fulcrums?
> 
> I would suppose that the best WWII fighter for multi-purpose use would be the late model Corsair, range, speed, payload, armament.
> (It was a land based fighter before it was a carrier one)
> ...


If you find this thread "strange" and necessary to mock, please don't participate. "Why stop at 1945". Why not? Other than minor improvements the development of piston fighters was at an end. You "suppose that the best WWII fighter for multi-purpose use would be the late model Corsair",I suppose you have a equal chance of being wrong. What "range, speed, payload, armament" do you really think was superior to other choices? I can certainly think of some of the original stated criteria where it was inferior. The did not call it the ensign eliminator without reason and even with the later stall tab it was still far more likely to kill you for a mistake than many other aircraft. There is no need to know what your opponent is using since he has exactly the same choice of piston aircraft as you. No jet fighters would be available in sufficient quantity to make a difference. "Corsairs vs Me109Es?" Corsair maybe. Me109E = improved flight performance with all the unsatisfactory issues that get you killed uncorrected.



davebender said:


> Is the airframe large enough to a accomodate new engines, weapons and larger fuel tanks? If not then you must immediately begin design of a follow-on aircraft.


Excellent addition to the criteria. Some of the aircraft available definitely had little or marginal ability to upgrade in all areas of the criteria originally listed.



Readie said:


> Everyone is entitled to an opinion.


 
Yes they are, and I respect your right to have and express yours. I respectfully disagree with your opinion.



ctrian said:


> 1.	Performance (speed ,roll rate,acceleration ,climb rate etc)
> 2.	Cost
> 3.	Durability
> 4.	Stability
> ...


 Many of these are excellent things to consider and would be details contained in the original criteria. Visibility from the cockpit is often under valued, gunsight certainly makes a huge difference (compare to shooting a firearm with iron sights to one with a modern red dot sight), automated controls is a plus in reducing pilot fatigue, maneuvering, pilot safety.


----------



## tomo pauk (May 20, 2011)

In a more affirmative note: we have a thread ( http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/polls/best-piston-engined-fighter-ever-7415.html )dealing with best piston engined fighter plane, perhaps a fresh thread covering that could be OK.


----------



## renrich (May 20, 2011)

Criticism of the fight characteristics of the Corsair ( Ensign Eliminator, "It could get you killed") needs to be tempered substantially by the knowledge that those undesirable characteristics were identified in the context of the very demanding environment of carrier operations. Operating the Corsair as a landbased plane was a horse of a different color. Flying from land bases it was very little, if not no more dangerous than most other high performance WW2 fighters. If one reads up on the FW190 it is remarkable how similar it's stall characteristics were to the Corsair. The P40 was the AAF ground looping champion perhaps only exceeded in that category by the F4F and the ME109 was said to have destroyed itself in landing accidents quite frequently. The P38 for a low time pilot was a handful and so on. The fact is that few if any WW2 fighters were especially easy to operate.


----------



## davebender (May 20, 2011)

Was there much difference before the introduction of gyro stabilized gunsights during 1945?

Aircraft weapons are a critical component. However you are stuck with whatever your nation has adopted as standard. For the USA that means .50cal MGs right up to 1950. Most other nations had decent aircraft cannon in service by 1941.


----------



## Lighthunmust (May 20, 2011)

tomo pauk said:


> In a more affirmative note: we have a thread ( http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/polls/best-piston-engined-fighter-ever-7415.html )dealing with best piston engined fighter plane, perhaps a fresh thread covering that could be OK.


 That thread has a limited list of aircraft and no criteria to use for supporting any choice. I am trying to get some agreed upon way of analysis to support choices. Already in this thread members have presented information that has me rethinking some of my assumptions and opinions. That is why I started it. We all have our emotional favorites, I like to understand why they are worthy of being our emotional favorites. I have a real soft spot for the P-40 (and others) but I don't think it is the best choice based on the criteria I listed. Is that "affirmative"?


----------



## ctrian (May 20, 2011)

Lighthunmust said:


> Many of these are excellent things to consider and would be details contained in the original criteria. Visibility from the cockpit is often under valued, gunsight certainly makes a huge difference (compare to shooting a firearm with iron sights to one with a modern red dot sight), automated controls is a plus in reducing pilot fatigue, maneuvering, pilot safety.


 

Yep and don't forget cost and serviceability. For example the Bf-109 was not only a great little aircraft but it was very cheap to produce.If an airforce has equipment that require few hours in the hangar they can fly more sorties than the enemy and defeat him even when numerically outnumbered
!


----------



## Lighthunmust (May 20, 2011)

renrich said:


> Criticism of the fight characteristics of the Corsair ( Ensign Eliminator, "It could get you killed") needs to be tempered substantially by the knowledge that those undesirable characteristics were identified in the context of the very demanding environment of carrier operations. Operating the Corsair as a landbased plane was a horse of a different color. Flying from land bases it was very little, if not no more dangerous than most other high performance WW2 fighters. If one reads up on the FW190 it is remarkable how similar it's stall characteristics were to the Corsair. The P40 was the AAF ground looping champion perhaps only exceeded in that category by the F4F and the ME109 was said to have destroyed itself in landing accidents quite frequently. The P38 for a low time pilot was a handful and so on. The fact is that few if any WW2 fighters were especially easy to operate.


None were especially easy to operate, but some were significantly easier than others. Even when operating on land the Corsair was still more of a handful than others. Anyone think the improved Corsair had better landing characteristics than for example a Spitfire or Thunderbolt? Interesting you mentioned the P-40 as it has a similar landing gear set-up, and originally a similar problem with nasty stall characteristics until improved.



ctrian said:


> Yep and don't forget cost and serviceability. For example the Bf-109 was not only a great little aircraft but it was very cheap to produce.If an airforce has equipment that require few hours in the hangar they can fly more sorties than the enemy and defeat him even when numerically outnumbered
> !


I have already expressed my opinion that cost is a minor consideration. As long as materials are available the difference in cost between the most expensive and least expensive fighters is not prohibitively great. None of the combatants ran out of aircraft, they ran out of pilots and fuel. The Bf-109 has so many other limiting factors based on the listed criteria (numbers 2,3,5,6,8,9) that I do not think it the best choice. If I were defending the air over my homeland I would want an aircraft that had great pilot and aircraft survival characteristics when damaged or accidently crashed (109 not noted for either), able to stay in the air for long patrols( 109 rather short ranged), and easy armament logistics (for the 109 working on the guns and engine at the same time was problematic and had more than one caliber of ammunition to supply). I don't think the 109 was very good in any of these things.


----------



## renrich (May 20, 2011)

Almost all of the early models of the fighters had some undesirable flight characteristics and as some models evolved they were not as docile as the early models. I guess the P40 and Corsair landing gear were similar. They both had wheels and struts. From "Eighty Knots to Mach Two," by Richard Linnekin, a career Navy pilot. This was in the 1945-50 time frame and he was learning to operate the F4U4.

"The Corsair was a stable airplane with reasonable, not objectionable, control forces. It had a comforting, solid feel in cruise configuration, yet maneuver response was quick and relatively easy. It was not as quick as the Bearcat, but in some ways it was more controllable. My subjective impression is of better "control harmony" in the Corsair than in either of the Grummans. That expression refers to a desirable state in which stability and control responses are similar about all three axes."

"THe F4U was a fine acrobatic airplane." "I was pleased to discover that stalls, especially what would now be called approach to landing stalls, were straightforward-mostly that means no left wing drop-with insufficient warning, mushy control response and the need for lots of back stick." "When it came time to land the "Ensign Eliminator" my apprehension was gone. Landing the Corsair was a piece of cake. The airplane's attitude on the ground with that raised tail wheel took a little getting used to but the visibility on roll out was good for a tail wheel airplane. I shot half a dozen or so touch and go landings followed by a final. By the end of the flight I didn't feel the airplane's master but I was comfortable in it. Even better than comfortable, I liked it."

That was his first flight and later in the book he explains why he became a better gunner in the Corsair than with either the Hellcat or Bearcat. Does not sound like the later Corsair was a beast at all!


----------



## ctrian (May 21, 2011)

Lighthunmust said:


> None were especially easy to operate, but some were significantly easier than others. Even when operating on land the Corsair was still more of a handful than others. Anyone think the improved Corsair had better landing characteristics than for example a Spitfire or Thunderbolt? Interesting you mentioned the P-40 as it has a similar landing gear set-up, and originally a similar problem with nasty stall characteristics until improved.
> 
> 
> I have already expressed my opinion that cost is a minor consideration. As long as materials are available the difference in cost between the most expensive and least expensive fighters is not prohibitively great. None of the combatants ran out of aircraft, they ran out of pilots and fuel. The Bf-109 has so many other limiting factors based on the listed criteria (numbers 2,3,5,6,8,9) that I do not think it the best choice. If I were defending the air over my homeland I would want an aircraft that had great pilot and aircraft survival characteristics when damaged or accidently crashed (109 not noted for either), able to stay in the air for long patrols( 109 rather short ranged), and easy armament logistics (for the 109 working on the guns and engine at the same time was problematic and had more than one caliber of ammunition to supply). I don't think the 109 was very good in any of these things.


 
Cost in ww2 would be a measure of the materials and manpower used plus capital equipment required .If you compare different aircraft costs in *man-hours *you’ll see that there were significant differences. For example the Spitfire took twice the man-hours compared to the Bf109 .Just because a country doesn’t run out of aircraft doesn’t mean that they are cheap it could mean that the country is spending huge sums of money and lots of manpower on the air industry.Men and materials that will not be allocated to other sectors of course.As for your comments on the Bf109 I think you’re wrong on most of them.Take a look at the discussions here and Kurfurt’s site on the Bf109,he has original documents.


----------



## Lighthunmust (May 21, 2011)

ctrian said:


> Cost in ww2 would be a measure of the materials and manpower used plus capital equipment required .If you compare different aircraft costs in *man-hours *you’ll see that there were significant differences. For example the Spitfire took twice the man-hours compared to the Bf109 .Just because a country doesn’t run out of aircraft doesn’t mean that they are cheap it could mean that the country is spending huge sums of money and lots of manpower on the air industry.Men and materials that will not be allocated to other sectors of course.As for your comments on the Bf109 I think you’re wrong on most of them.Take a look at the discussions here and Kurfurt’s site on the Bf109,he has original documents.


Mismanagement of materials, manpower, capital equipment is more the problem than materials, manpower, and capital equipment. When the survival of the nation is at stake you sacrifice to the most important weapon systems. Why were so many Spitfires made even if as you say they took twice the man-hours? One reason is that the U.K. made full commitment to a war economy much sooner than the Germans once the war began. Until late in war a much larger percentage of the German economy was devoted to civilian needs. What would have benefited the Germans more, two more divisions of Tiger tanks and toasters or the equivalent in fighters flown by experienced pilots on June 6, 1944? If more German pilots and aircraft had survived by D-Day because they were flying aircraft with the better aircraft and pilot survival characteristics, range, and easier armament logistics of something similar to a P-47, the beaches on June 6, 1944 may have been untenable for the allies. I am really of the opinion that the Luftwaffe did as well as it did in spite of the Bf109 and not because of it. That being said I an open minded to reasoned argument and analysis. Could you please provide a link to “Kurfurt’s site” and any threads you believe support your argument. Thank you.


----------



## ctrian (May 21, 2011)

Lighthunmust said:


> Mismanagement of materials, manpower, capital equipment is more the problem than materials, manpower, and capital equipment..... That being said I an open minded to reasoned argument and analysis. Could you please provide a link to “Kurfurt’s site” and any threads you believe support your argument. Thank you.


 
The idea that the German war economy was mismanaged, on peace footing etc was always ridiculous and has been thoroughly debunked by Tooze,’’Wages of Destruction’’ and Abelshauser in ‘’The Economics of World War II’’ chapter 4.
Kurfurst’s site: Kurfurst - Your resource on Messerschmitt Bf 109 performance
Regarding the threads you’ll have to use the search function there are several that deal with Bf109 performance ,combat record , losses ,comparison with allied fighters etc


----------



## Lighthunmust (May 21, 2011)

ctrian said:


> The idea that the German war economy was mismanaged, on peace footing etc was always ridiculous and has been thoroughly debunked by Tooze,’’Wages of Destruction’’ and Abelshauser in ‘’The Economics of World War II’’ chapter 4.
> Kurfurst’s site: Kurfurst - Your resource on Messerschmitt Bf 109 performance
> Regarding the threads you’ll have to use the search function there are several that deal with Bf109 performance ,combat record , losses ,comparison with allied fighters etc


Thanks for the link, I'll check it out. I am not familiar with the sources you site on the German economy. The preponderance of sources I have been exposed to agree with me. Just the aspect of mismanagement regarding wasted manpower and resources on every screwball idea for wonder weapons, unrealistic perfection of design, and choosing producers who are political favorites is orders of magnitude greater than what went on with the Allies. With regard to the comparison and timing of commitment to a full war economy, I suggest you read "Why the Allies Won" by Richard Overy published by W.W. Norton Co. 1996.



Lighthunmust said:


> First off if the Mods feel the way I am presenting this topic is not sufficiently new in approach I will understand it being closed.
> 
> This is purely a hypothetical situation in that what is being chosen would be what you would choose if you had to begin fighting WW2 again on September 1, 1939 with any of the aircraft available at any time during 1939-45. The Fighter you choose would be the one to arm your air force if you could choose only one aircraft type and it must be adequate for all missions and superior in some missions.
> 
> ...


 

Dear fellow members of the forum: I would really like to get back to the original purpose of this thread: determining the criteria required to make the choice for the scenario proposed. Some of you have contributed great new criteria or more detail to what was listed. Some of you have certainly made me reconsider my assumptions and opinions. Some have you provided great sources for information. Thank you. I still would like to get more criteria and if you are ready to state your choice of fighter please give detailed reasons for it. Thanks for participating.


----------



## davebender (May 21, 2011)

There were no Panzer divisions equipped primarily with Tiger tanks. They were produced in limited numbers and assigned to heavy panzer battalions for use against fortifications. Similiar in concept to the Soviet KV series and the "Jumbo" version of the American Sherman tank. 

Not that this has anything to do with the topic at hand.


----------



## Lighthunmust (May 21, 2011)

davebender said:


> There were no Panzer divisions equipped primarily with Tiger tanks. They were produced in limited numbers and assigned to heavy panzer battalions for use against fortifications. Similiar in concept to the Soviet KV series and the "Jumbo" version of the American Sherman tank.
> 
> Not that this has anything to do with the topic at hand.


 
Perhaps I should not have said Tiger. It is not that I thought there were divisions exclusively equipped with Tigers. What I was trying to convey is that resources were wasted on things like Tiger tanks that could have been used for more superior effective aircraft. It was certainly easier to build a superior fighter (FW190D) than a superior ineffective tank (Tiger) The concept of the Tiger was terribly flawed for the conditions and technology of the war and should have been realized before production ever started. Hitler's influence is greatly responsible for this mistake. Tiger tanks however were not just assigned for use against fortifications as a great many Canadian and American tankers discovered. That being said there is no bear to big that too many hounds are not the death of it.


----------



## davebender (May 21, 2011)

I'll grant you that the Tiger tank wasn't cost efficient. However it was very effective in combat.

As opposed to Bismarck class battleships and Hipper class heavy cruisers which were horribly expensive while contributing practically nothing to the German war effort.


----------



## Lighthunmust (May 21, 2011)

davebender said:


> I'll grant you that the Tiger tank wasn't cost efficient. However it was very effective in combat.
> 
> As opposed to Bismarck class battleships and Hipper class heavy cruisers which were horribly expensive while contributing practically nothing to the German war effort.



Sorry Dave I cannot agree it was effective in combat. It was too big and heavy for the roads and bridges it needed to cross and the roads in urban areas. It used more fuel than the better Panther at a time when fuel was critically short, its mechanical reliability was substandard, its turret traverse was comparably slow, and once to many hounds (five Shermans) surrounded it, destruction of the bear(Tiger)was only 2 or 3 dead Shermans away. The Germans would have been far better off with 1.3 extra Panthers for every Tiger they wasted time and material on.

In case I missed it Dave, what additional criteria do you have to contribute and do you have a choice with details for making it?


----------



## BiffF15 (May 21, 2011)

Hello gents, great thread! At first blush I will throw the F4U Corsair into the mix, however I have more questions to follow about the criteria.


----------



## Lighthunmust (May 21, 2011)

BiffF15 said:


> Hello gents, great thread! At first blush I will throw the F4U Corsair into the mix, however I have more questions to follow about the criteria.


 
From what I have been reading many would agree with you that the F4U is definitely a serious contender! Based on the listed criteria why do you think the F4U is the best choice?


----------



## ctrian (May 22, 2011)

@ Lighthunmust

Throw away Overy's book it's garbage.Buy ''Wages of Destruction'' and ''Brute Force'' by John Ellis.You can thank me later...


----------



## Lighthunmust (May 22, 2011)

ctrian said:


> @ Lighthunmust
> 
> Throw away Overy's book it's garbage.Buy ''Wages of Destruction'' and ''Brute Force'' by John Ellis.You can thank me later...


 
Really garbage? That seems to be a minority opinion from what my search of reviews indicates. I also found that Ellis, Tooze, and Abelhauser are not without controversy. Overy is not my only source of information. Even if the allies and axis had exactly the same resources, the superior systems of management and decision methods would have ensured victory. That is about as sure as the sun rising in the east. I find it laughable to assert the German political and industrial leadership did not enormously hinder themselves with arrogance of individually thinking they were experts on all aspects war fighting, the delusion of ethnic superiority, and individual greed to an extent far greater than the allies. All of this resulted in being too slow and disorganized to realize the magnitude of the situation and have a maximum effort in time.

WHAT NEW CRITERIA DO YOU HAVE TO CONTRIBUTE. WHAT FIGHTER IS YOUR CHOICE AND HOW IS IT SUPERIOR WHEN USING THE LISTED CRITERIA?


----------



## ctrian (May 22, 2011)

Yes it IS really that bad i've read it and EVERY chapter is wrong.Do yourself a favour and buy the books i mentioned.If you're looking for cool aircraft you can't go wrong with the Bf109 really cheap to build,easy to operate, stellar combat record and can fly all day with little maintenace.Of course it is a point interceptor so you can't compare it with aircraft built for long range missions.


----------



## Lighthunmust (May 22, 2011)

ctrian said:


> Yes it IS really that bad i've read it and EVERY chapter is wrong.Do yourself a favour and buy the books i mentioned.If you're looking for cool aircraft you can't go wrong with the Bf109 really cheap to build,easy to operate, stellar combat record and can fly all day with little maintenace.Of course it is a point interceptor so you can't compare it with aircraft built for long range missions.


 
If I come across the books you recommend I will certainly consider reading them, until then the preponderance of sources I have seen support my opinion.

The problem is that even *if* the Bf109 is everything you say that disqualifies it from being the best choice because of the range issue you mention. I also think its weapons load and diversity capability, and aircraft and pilot survivability, to name a few criteria, are deficient. Your post has certainly convinced me that Bf109 fandom is well populated. Much of the 109s length of service, production numbers, and combat record have nothing to do with its capabilities being superior to opponents. Do you think if Galland or Hartmann had equal hours of training in a German made P-51 they would have chosen the 109? I don't.


----------



## ctrian (May 22, 2011)

Tooze's book is already cheap you can buy it.As for the Bf u have to be specific about what you want the aircraft to do.The p51 is a '44 plane and had other problems(stability and firepower).No aircraft can do everything you need ,each airforce prioritized different things.For example i don’t think the P51 would be useful for the Germans


----------



## Readie (May 22, 2011)

davebender said:


> Bismarck class battleships and Hipper class heavy cruisers which were horribly expensive while contributing practically nothing to the German war effort.


----------



## tomo pauk (May 22, 2011)

ctrian said:


> Tooze's book is already cheap you can buy it.As for the Bf u have to be specific about what you want the aircraft to do.The p51 is a '44 plane and had other problems(stability and firepower).No aircraft can do everything you need ,each airforce prioritized different things.For example i don’t think the P51 would be useful for the Germans


 
P-51 entered service in 1942; the firepower, while not comparable with 4-cannon Typhoons Hurricanes, was sufficient for tasks of RAF USAAC. 
The stability problems were encountered only with rear fuel tank having more than 50% of contents. 
The Germans would've loved it, no doubt about that.


----------



## Lighthunmust (May 22, 2011)

ctrian said:


> Tooze's book is already cheap you can buy it.As for the Bf u have to be specific about what you want the aircraft to do.The p51 is a '44 plane and had other problems(stability and firepower).No aircraft can do everything you need ,each airforce prioritized different things.For example i don’t think the P51 would be useful for the Germans


 
If you will read the parameters of the thread listed in the first posting you will see that " The P-51 is a '44 plane" does not matter. The point of the thread is determining the criteria for and then making a choice of the best fighter for use under all conditions. Obviously not single aircraft will excel in are areas. The point is to establish what must be considered in making the best compromise of capabilities before making a choice from what was available between 1939-45. Please read the original thread if you need further clarification.

I think the Germans would have loved to have had the P-51 in May 1940. It was exactly what they needed for escort during BOB. During the defense of the Reich P-51s would have been faster and easier to rearm, needed less time refueling between multiple short intercept missions, and would have the range to initiate intercept over the Channel and North Sea from bases deep in Germany far from the harassment of Rodeos.


----------



## Shortround6 (May 22, 2011)

Readie said:


>


 Don't mind Mr Bender on the subject of the German Navy. He seems to have an irrational hatred of the Kriegsmarine which coupled with 20/20 hindsight and the idea that leaders of the time should have been able to see into the Future by 3-6 years which tend to lead him to some rather strange conclusions.


----------



## Lighthunmust (May 22, 2011)

Back in post #20 you stated "I don't know, I kind of like the idea of dozens of squadrons of Hawker Tempest IIs blasting hapless He 111s out of the sky in the BoB in the summer of 1940." After reading your posts on other topics, you appear to be very knowledgeable so I think I will take a look on what I have on the Tempest. Is the Tempest II what you exclusively choose based on the listed criteria and scenario? Why is it better than anything else?


----------



## Shortround6 (May 22, 2011)

Lighthunmust said:


> If you will read the parameters and of the thread listed in the first posting you will see that " The P-51 is a '44 plane" does not matter. The point of the thread is determining the criteria for and then making a choice of the best fighter for use under all conditions. Obviously not single aircraft will excel in are areas. The point is to establish what must be considered in making the best compromise of capabilities before making a choice from what was available between 1939-45. Please read the original thread if you need further clarification.
> 
> I think the Germans would have loved to have had the P-51 in May 1940. It was exactly what they needed for escort during BOB. During the defense of the Reich P-51s would have been faster and easier to rearm, needed less time refueling between multiple short intercept missions, and would have the range to initiate intercept over the Channel and North Sea from bases deep in Germany far from the harassment of Rodeos.



Any Air Force would have LOVED to have had planes with 1944 capabilities in 1940. Without time travel is wasn't going to happen. There are reasons that 1944 planes had the capability they did and why 1940 planes had the capabilities THEY did. Like 4 years worth of research and development in aerodynamics, different fuel, improved superchargers ( and not just adding a stage), new bearing materials, new vibration dampers, and host of other small but important detail and material changes. Not to mention changes in manufacturing techniques and testing methods.

What may be more interesting would be to compare the Promised performance of the first NA-73 in 1940 to the performance of planes actually flying in 1940 to see what kind of increase in performance there really was. Especially considering that most planes in combat in 1940 had been on the drawing boards in 1936-37 and so, in some ways were 3-4 years behind the Mustang as it was.


----------



## Shortround6 (May 22, 2011)

Lighthunmust said:


> Back in post #20 you stated "I don't know, I kind of like the idea of dozens of squadrons of Hawker Tempest IIs blasting hapless He 111s out of the sky in the BoB in the summer of 1940." After reading your posts on other topics, you appear to be very knowledgeable so I think I will take a look on what I have on the Tempest. Is the Tempest II what you exclusively choose based on the listed criteria and scenario? Why is it better than anything else?



I was being a bit sarcastic.

Most any 1944-45 fighter is going to beat the crap out of 1940 bombers. Just like a 1944-45 bomber would have made swiss cheese out of any 1940 fighter defense. Imagine Hurricane MK Is trying to intercept A-26s let alone B-29s. 

See the XB-28 and XB-42 for an idea of what was at least possible using piston engines and propellers by the end of the war.

North American XB-28 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Douglas XB-42 Mixmaster - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## davparlr (May 22, 2011)

tomo pauk said:


> Sarcasm, David


 
Ohhh!


----------



## Lighthunmust (May 22, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> Any Air Force would have LOVED to have had planes with 1944 capabilities in 1940. Without time travel is wasn't going to happen. There are reasons that 1944 planes had the capability they did and why 1940 planes had the capabilities THEY did. Like 4 years worth of research and development in aerodynamics, different fuel, improved superchargers ( and not just adding a stage), new bearing materials, new vibration dampers, and host of other small but important detail and material changes. Not to mention changes in manufacturing techniques and testing methods.
> 
> What may be more interesting would be to compare the Promised performance of the first NA-73 in 1940 to the performance of planes actually flying in 1940 to see what kind of increase in performance there really was. Especially considering that most planes in combat in 1940 had been on the drawing boards in 1936-37 and so, in some ways were 3-4 years behind the Mustang as it was.


 
I must admit I a getting a little frustrated. Perhaps I haven't clearly defined what this thread is about so I will try again.

This is a not a reality situation with regard to WW2.

This is a thought experiment using all conditions of WW2 except for one.

That exception is you as the leader of your nation has the opportunity to choose one fighter aircraft type that was available in reality from 1939-45 to use in a hypothetical refighting of WW2 from start to finish. You only get one fighter aircraft type, not just one fighter aircraft. This fighter aircraft type must perform all missions that fighter aircraft during the actual WW2 were typically tasked.

The reasons for these conditions are to eliminate anyone saying "Well in 1940 I would use this, and in 1945 this" or "On the Russia front I would use this and in Burma I would use this".

The performance criteria listed and any additional relevant criteria provided by other members is to determine what fighter aircraft would be the best "jack of all trades" to use. Once anyone is sure sufficient criteria is available for analysis, a choice with explanation would be appreciated. A few members have made choices, unfortunately with little explanation using the criteria. Some of those choices appear to be clear contenders, others not. I am hoping that once we get enough choices a final comparison can be made to determine a winner based on votes from the members. Hopefully the votes will be made based on use of logical criteria.

So do you have a choice and explanation for this scenario using the listed criteria?

Obviously Hurricanes and 109Es from 1940 are not the best choice. Also obviously any aircraft available in 1945 is not an equally good choice to other aircraft available in 1945.


----------



## Shortround6 (May 22, 2011)

I m sorry you are getting frustrated but as far as I can tell all you are asking is what was the best all round fighter in 1945. 

You can dress up the conditions all you want but 1944-45 fighters are going to have 1945 engines ( 2 to 2 1/2 times the power of a 1940 engine), 1945 fuel (allowing for higher power to weigh ratios ratios for the engines) , 1945 armament (new guns, new ammo, new gun sights and with those more powerful engines, a much greater weight of armament)*, a much more through understanding of aerodynamics ( the US alone roughly tripled the number of wind tunnels in operation from 1939 to 1945) and a much better understanding of stress analysis and structures. 

So, rather obviously, only late/end war fighters are going to have the performance and armament to compete. Now we can discuss cockpit comfort, cockpit space for radar equipment, ease of landing or low speed handling or some other factors not covered by a simple speed, climb, range,armament/payload comparison but lets not kid ourselves that ANY early war aircraft has a chance of coming out on top. Mid/war planes don't have much chance either. 


"Obviously Hurricanes and 109Es from 1940 are not the best choice. Also obviously any aircraft available in 1945 is not an equally good choice to other aircraft available in 1945."

* from above, as a for instance of change, in 1939-40 the American .50cal MG had a cycle rate of 600rpm unsynchronized. At some point in 1940 it was modified to increase the cycle rate to a nominal 850rpm and in the spring of 1945 several more years of work resulted in a type approved M3 version going into production with a rate of fire of 1200rpm. So a 1945 F8F Bearcat with four .50s had twice the firepower per second of a 1940 Wildcat with four .50s. This should also be kept in mind when comparing postwar aircraft to WW II aircraft when discussing armament.


----------



## Lighthunmust (May 22, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> I m sorry you are getting frustrated but as far as I can tell all you are asking is what was the best all round fighter in 1945.
> 
> You can dress up the conditions all you want but 1944-45 fighters are going to have 1945 engines ( 2 to 2 1/2 times the power of a 1940 engine), 1945 fuel (allowing for higher power to weigh ratios ratios for the engines) , 1945 armament (new guns, new ammo, new gun sights and with those more powerful engines, a much greater weight of armament)*, a much more through understanding of aerodynamics ( the US alone roughly tripled the number of wind tunnels in operation from 1939 to 1945) and a much better understanding of stress analysis and structures.
> 
> ...


 
Nobody is kidding themselves. I and probably many others understand the factors you presented. Perhaps it was a mistake on my part to write "1939-45" as it implies someone might choose other than 1945 technology. "1939-45" was written just to designate an era.

You are missing the point. You have to play the game according to the established rules. So far you are acting like a player running around shouting out the obvious rules of baseball while everyone else it trying to play football. You are obviously knowledgeable of WW2 aircraft performance, but I am beginning to think you are using this thread just to broadcast your breadth of common and esoteric knowledge rather than applying it to the stated parameters in the scenario. This saddens me because I really think you could provide something meaningful if you would just play by the rules.


----------



## Shortround6 (May 22, 2011)

*I don't think I am being any more obtuse than you are*

From your post #14

"The original posting states"This is purely a hypothetical situation in that what is being chosen would be what you would choose if you had to begin fighting WW2 again on September 1, 1939 with any of the aircraft available at any time during 1939-45. Being in production on 9-1-39 is not necessary. Please re-read the original posting." 

Now it has only take another 64 posts to get to the point were being in production on 9-1-39 is not only not necessary but by your admission not likely to come out on top. Of course you as much as admitted that in your post #16 but then persisted with this science-fiction twist of re-fighting WW II with one side using a 1945 airplane from the beginning. 

Perhaps I am shouting about "obvious rules of baseball" but I can't figure out if you are talking about American football, European (world) football (soccer), Rugby or Australian rules football. I like plain speaking, ff you want to compare the top piston engine fighters of 1945 based on a wider spread of criteria than usual that is fine. I just don't think we need to evaluate them on how well they would have shot down He 111s over England in daylight in 1940 or defended Darwin against the Japanese in 1942 or escorted transports from Sicily to Tunisia past Malta in 1941-42 to do it. 

Before we spend anymore time on this are there any other rules for exclusion, since we also seem to have eliminated jets along the way. Like did a candidate just have to fly in 1945 or or just be in production or see squadron service or actually see combat (that one shortens up the year by about 4-5months).


----------



## ctrian (May 23, 2011)

tomo pauk said:


> P-51 entered service in 1942; the firepower, while not comparable with 4-cannon Typhoons Hurricanes, was sufficient for tasks of RAF USAAC.
> The stability problems were encountered only with rear fuel tank having more than 50% of contents.
> The Germans would've loved it, no doubt about that.


 
P-51 in its ground attack version entered service in '42.As a long range high altitude escort it entered service in final months of '43 ,that’s why i say '44.As for the Germans I’m not sure in what capacity it would be of use to them. As an escort for what?


----------



## razor1uk (May 23, 2011)

I don't mean to sound rude, but if your going to ask peoples opinions to your criteria Lighthunmust, you shouldn't be so nay-saying of theirs, although it might be to get them to explain.
Since you have been a little roughshod, what is your pre-concieved choice of aircraft to your criteria?, listing the points you wish to make as an example to others.


----------



## Shortround6 (May 23, 2011)

I think I will play by a few of my own rules:

Here is a list of possible candidates.

British:
DH Hornet*
Hawker Tempest VI#^
Hawker Tempest II
Hawker Fury
Martin Baker MB 5#
Supermarine Spitfire MK 22#
Supermarine Spiteful#

France;
None

Germany:
Do 335*
Ta 152#
Me 109K-?#@

Italy:
None

Japan:
None

Soviet Union:
LA-7
Yak-3P#
Prototypes?

US:
Grumman F7F*
Grumman [email protected]
Goodyear FG-2^
NA P-51H#@
Republic P-47H
Republic P-72^
Vought F4U-4
Vought F4U-5

If we take out the fighters marked * because they are twins and and would be harder to mass produce because of their size and maintenance problems (original rules 14) Fighters marked ^ suffer same problem expensive 24/28cylinder engines that are hard to maintain. 

and we take out the fighters marked # because they have liquid cooled engines and are more likely to be susceptible to battle damage (original rules 6) although a exception or two may be made?

and we take out the fighters marked @ because they have less than average armament (original rules 7) at least for this group we are left with;

British:
Hawker Tempest II
Hawker Fury$

Soviet Union:
LA-7

US:
Republic P-47H
Vought F4U-4$
Vought F4U-5$%

Fighters marked $ are carrier based and so are out according to original rules although they can be land based. Fighter marked % doesn't fly until Dec 21 1945 so it is really here on very thin ice. 
The LA-7 falls short in a number of ways and only made it this far because the 1945 version had 3 20mm B-20 cannon which kept in the running armament wise. 

It would seem we are down the the Hawker Tempest II and the P-47 and I have a strange feeling the Tempest wasn't supposed to be here. I would note the the P-47s armament while above average for a WW II fighter was below average in the original 1945 group. The Centaurus engine was expensive and had some problems with development during the war but went on to post some rather amazing time between overhaul numbers in commercial service post war. The two planes owned rather different parts of the sky. Tempest II under 20,000ft and the P-47 over 20,000ft. Tempest II doesn't have turbo (and duct) maintenance issues or valves that need adjusting

Now we can fiddle a bit with cockpit size and trying to get a single seat fighter to fight at night I think we are down to two contenders.


----------



## tomo pauk (May 23, 2011)

ctrian said:


> P-51 in its ground attack version entered service in '42.



Nope.
RAF's fighter squadrons used P-51/Mustang, in 1942, along with recce units.



> As a long range high altitude escort it entered service in final months of '43 ,that’s why i say '44.As for the Germans I’m not sure in what capacity it would be of use to them. As an escort for what?



P-51 possessed many capabilities, along with long range. Used by Luftwaffe, it would've been faster than any fighter Russians fielded by 1944. Since Eastern front was pretty large battlefield, long range comes to play, too. Germans used their bombers there up to 1945, so there is something to escort. Or, using it to achieve air superiority over Malta. Or, to provide a fighter escort from Siciliy to Tunisia. And that is before we 'Germanise' the initial P-51, by installing the DB-605 some cannons.


----------



## tomo pauk (May 23, 2011)

Lighthunmust said:


> Nobody is kidding themselves. I and probably many others understand the factors you presented. Perhaps it was a mistake on my part to write "1939-45" as it implies someone might choose other than 1945 technology. "1939-45" was written just to designate an era.
> 
> You are missing the point. You have to play the game according to the established rules. So far you are acting like a player running around shouting out the obvious rules of baseball while everyone else it trying to play football. You are obviously knowledgeable of WW2 aircraft performance, but I am beginning to think you are using this thread just to broadcast your breadth of common and esoteric knowledge rather than applying it to the stated parameters in the scenario. This saddens me because I really think you could provide something meaningful if you would just play by the rules.


 
Our fellow member Shortround6 myself have exchanged many cyberspace barrages, yet I've never felt he was being obtuse. He made me do a lot of research, and I've learned a lot from his posts. You can try, too.


----------



## Shortround6 (May 23, 2011)

tomo pauk said:


> Our fellow member Shortround6 myself have exchanged many cyberspace barrages, yet I've never felt he was being obtuse. He made me do a lot of research, and I've learned a lot from his posts. You can try, too.


 Thank you Tomo, I too have learned from our exchanges as I have done research or reread books to back up my positions. I do appreciate your enthusiasm and admire your skill in photo-shopping those drawings (how-ever you do it) even if if I don't always agree with your conclusions.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 23, 2011)

I don't undestand why someone is getting their panties in a bunch over a "What if" thread...


----------



## ctrian (May 23, 2011)

tomo pauk said:


> Nope.
> RAF's fighter squadrons used P-51/Mustang, in 1942, along with recce units.
> 
> 
> ...


 
What engine did it use in '42 ? What capability did it have in '42? It would be faster where ? 30.000 feet? Why would the Russians fight in outer space? Bf109 did all the things you mention.You seem to be under the impression that the P-51 was some sort of 1940's F-22 superior in every way...That's not how the world works it was good in some areas not so good in others.Most of all it was the right aircraft for the *USAAF*.


----------



## davparlr (May 23, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> US:
> Republic P-47H


 Wouldn't the P-47H have a #? 

I would have thought the P-47M/N would fit.


----------



## tomo pauk (May 23, 2011)

> What engine did it use in '42 ?



I take it you mean real P-51? Allison V-1710.



> What capability did it have in '42?



Non-Germanised? 630 km/h @ 4km, combat range in clean condition as good as LW fighters with drop tanks. Wide undercarriage, allowing for better take off landing capabilities @ non-paved runaways.
Hypothetical/Germanised? Some 680 km/h @ 6km, superb punch, plus other stuff mentioned. Much better compressibility issues than what was fielded then there.



> It would be faster where ? 30.000 feet? Why would the Russians fight in outer space?



How about reading something about P-51 in 1942/43?



> Bf109 did all the things you mention.



Nope. Bf-109 was a great fighter, yet it lacked @ combat range, and speed at same HP was notably lower than what P-51 was capable. Bf-109 reached it's peak in 1941/42, but hardly developed for the next 2-3 years. Unlike P-51.



> You seem to be under the impression that the P-51 was some sort of 1940's F-22 superior in every way...



I am not 



> That's not how the world works it was good in some areas not so good in others.



I can readily agree that some other designs were better 



> Most of all it was the right aircraft for the USAAF.



It surely was.


----------



## Lighthunmust (May 23, 2011)

Give me a little time and I will have a reply for all of you who posted since my last post. I think you may be a little surprised by it.


----------



## Shortround6 (May 23, 2011)

davparlr said:


> Wouldn't the P-47H have a #?
> 
> I would have thought the P-47M/N would fit.


 You are completely correct. I meant the P-47N


----------



## ctrian (May 23, 2011)

@ tomo pauk . Speed with what? zero fuel and engine running on 110%? If it was so good why was it replaced by the B/C/D? As for the comment on the eastern front i am awaiting your sources which show dogfights at 30.000ft.Don't keep me waiting for long though i want to learn.


----------



## tomo pauk (May 23, 2011)

> Don't keep me waiting for long though i want to learn.



Ah, that Mediterranean spirit 



> Speed with what? zero fuel and engine running on 110%?



Mustang (Allison Engine) Performance Trials
That covers V-1710-engined P-51 P-51A, able to make 390 and 405 mph, respectively.



> If it was so good why was it replaced by the B/C/D?



Perhaps because Packard Merlin used by those afforded almost twice the power @ 25.000 ft?
Makes a good reading for people eager to learn a thing or two, esp. when comparing with stuff from previous link:
P-51 Mustang Performance



> As for the comment on the eastern front i am awaiting your sources which show dogfights at 30.000ft.



When I've said anything about E. front dogfights @ 30 kft?


----------



## ctrian (May 23, 2011)

LOL i actually expected you to use Mike Williams site.Take a look at Russian tests ...ah those Ruskies must be jealous of all that performance.
Axis History Forum • View topic - P-51 and P-47 in USSR: pilot opinions
Oh and don't play dumb you said i should read ,then tell me what to read!


----------



## Lighthunmust (May 23, 2011)

“I don't undestand why someone is getting their panties in a bunch over a "What if" thread...￼” - DerAdlerIstGelandet, Moderator


Please let me explain in detail. I have a multi-decade long interest in the subject that is almost a passion. As I am sure you see I am a very new member to this forum, however I have been a lurker for a while. The reason why I started this thread is because I am at home recovering from surgery, so I have time on my hands and I thought this thread would be a fun diversion. As to the thread scenario, I pretty much threw it together in a few minutes. Obviously if I had spent a great deal more time it would have had perhaps better clarity of intent, parameters, and easier guidelines for response. As to your metaphor of getting “panties in a bunch over a “What if” thread” that apparently is what it took to elicit not just an appropriate response but an outstanding, nee plus ultra, penultimate response from Shortround6 to the thread. If you do a quick search of my posts in this and other threads you will find several examples of my respect and admiration of Shortround6. - Lighthunmust

Please though consider the following:


“Any Air Force would have LOVED to have had planes with 1944 capabilities in 1940. Without time travel is wasn't going to happen. There are reasons that 1944 planes had the capability they did and why 1940 planes had the capabilities THEY did. Like 4 years worth of research and development in aerodynamics, different fuel, improved superchargers ( and not just adding a stage), new bearing materials, new vibration dampers, and host of other small but important detail and material changes. Not to mention changes in manufacturing techniques and testing methods.” - Shortround6


For me this is just obvious and assumed within the parameters of the thread and the “time travel” phrase is not necessary because this thread was never about actually doing what the scenario is about. This paragraph is not the requested additional criteria, it is just additional unnecessary information to that diverts attention from the issue. All of this information is true but again unnecessary. - Lighthunmust

“What may be more interesting would be to compare the Promised performance of the first NA-73 in 1940 to the performance of planes actually flying in 1940 to see what kind of increase in performance there really was. Especially considering that most planes in combat in 1940 had been on the drawing boards in 1936-37 and so, in some ways were 3-4 years behind the Mustang as it was.” - Shortround6


Sure it would be interesting, but please don’t hijack my thread, start a new one.
- Lighthunmust

“I was being a bit sarcastic.

Most any 1944-45 fighter is going to beat the crap out of 1940 bombers. Just like a 1944-45 bomber would have made swiss cheese out of any 1940 fighter defense. Imagine Hurricane MK Is trying to intercept A-26s let alone B-29s. 

See the XB-28 and XB-42 for an idea of what was at least possible using piston engines and propellers by the end of the war.

North American XB-28 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Douglas XB-42 Mixmaster - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia”

Shortround6

Again, unnecessary information that diverts attention from the issue. Also I am surprised that Shortround6 who repeatedly demonstrates in threads excellent knowledge and data sources would post Wikipedia links. Not that Wiki is all bad, just hazardous for accuracy. Also the two links are not really relevant for “what was at least possible using piston engines and propellers by the end of the war.” I know you can do better than that Shortround6 because I’ve seen it in other posts. - Lighthunmust

“I don't think I am being any more obtuse than you are

From your post #14
"The original posting states "This is purely a hypothetical situation in that what is being chosen would be what you would choose if you had to begin fighting WW2 again on September 1, 1939 with any of the aircraft available at any time during 1939-45. Being in production on 9-1-39 is not necessary. Please re-read the original posting." 

“Now it has only take another 64 posts to get to the point were being in production on 9-1-39 is not only not necessary but by your admission not likely to come out on top. Of course you as much as admitted that in your post #16 but then persisted with this science-fiction twist of re-fighting WW II with one side using a 1945 airplane from the beginning.” - Shortround6


As I stated above the original post starting the thread could have been better written, however unless something was specifically excluded I assumed everyone would understand everything else was probably included. I never excluded Naval aircraft that could be used on land. I just didn’t want anyone eliminating land designs because of carrier unsuitability. Of course many land designs can be adapted to carrier operation, such as the Spitfire, P-51, and P-39 if necessary. It is certainly implied in the original scenario that being in production on 9-1-39 is not necessary. There is no implication of only “one side using a 1945 airplane from the beginning.”, on the contrary any side could pick any aircraft. This is a thought experiment about determining what the best fighter is regardless of what combatant is using it, not a “science-fiction twist of re-fighting WW II with one side using a 1945 airplane from the beginning.” - Lighthunmust

Perhaps I am shouting about "obvious rules of baseball" but I can't figure out if you are talking about American football, European (world) football (soccer), Rugby or Australian rules football. I like plain speaking, ff you want to compare the top piston engine fighters of 1945 based on a wider spread of criteria than usual that is fine. I just don't think we need to evaluate them on how well they would have shot down He 111s over England in daylight in 1940 or defended Darwin against the Japanese in 1942 or escorted transports from Sicily to Tunisia past Malta in 1941-42 to do it. 

Before we spend anymore time on this are there any other rules for exclusion, since we also seem to have eliminated jets along the way. Like did a candidate just have to fly in 1945 or or just be in production or see squadron service or actually see combat (that one shortens up the year by about 4-5months).” - Shortround6


My reason for questioning your being deliberately obtuse is because I know you are a very sharp guy. I could not understand how you could not realize the type of response I was trying to elicit. Again the original thread certainly implies no jets and no restrictions on date of flight or production. After reading your most recent posts I think I now understand. You really don’t like the way I wrote up this scenario. It probably irritates you with its imprecision and proximity to being silly science fiction. This being said it apparently was worth irritating you because it resulted in you producing the following. - Lighthunmust

I think I will play by a few of my own rules:

(Which certainly appear to conform to the thread parameters and provide additional detail to the criteria I listed - Lighthunmust)

Here is a list of possible candidates.

British:
DH Hornet*
Hawker Tempest VI#^
Hawker Tempest II
Hawker Fury
Martin Baker MB 5#
Supermarine Spitfire MK 22#
Supermarine Spiteful#

France;
None

Germany:
Do 335*
Ta 152#
Me 109K-?#@

Italy:
None

Japan:
None

Soviet Union:
LA-7
Yak-3P#
Prototypes?

US:
Grumman F7F*
Grumman [email protected]
Goodyear FG-2^
NA P-51H#@
Republic P-47H
Republic P-72^
Vought F4U-4
Vought F4U-5

If we take out the fighters marked * because they are twins and and would be harder to mass produce because of their size and maintenance problems (original rules 14) Fighters marked ^ suffer same problem expensive 24/28cylinder engines that are hard to maintain. 

and we take out the fighters marked # because they have liquid cooled engines and are more likely to be susceptible to battle damage (original rules 6) although a exception or two may be made?

and we take out the fighters marked @ because they have less than average armament (original rules 7) at least for this group we are left with;

British:
Hawker Tempest II
Hawker Fury$

Soviet Union:
LA-7

US:
Republic P-47H
Vought F4U-4$
Vought F4U-5$%

Fighters marked $ are carrier based and so are out according to original rules although they can be land based. Fighter marked % doesn't fly until Dec 21 1945 so it is really here on very thin ice. 
The LA-7 falls short in a number of ways and only made it this far because the 1945 version had 3 20mm B-20 cannon which kept in the running armament wise. 

It would seem we are down the the Hawker Tempest II and the P-47 and I have a strange feeling the Tempest wasn't supposed to be here. I would note the the P-47s armament while above average for a WW II fighter was below average in the original 1945 group. The Centaurus engine was expensive and had some problems with development during the war but went on to post some rather amazing time between overhaul numbers in commercial service post war. The two planes owned rather different parts of the sky. Tempest II under 20,000ft and the P-47 over 20,000ft. Tempest II doesn't have turbo (and duct) maintenance issues or valves that need adjusting￼

Now we can fiddle a bit with cockpit size and trying to get a single seat fighter to fight at night I think we are down to two contenders.”

Shortround6

“Magnificent! I knew you, more than anyone else I have seen on this forum, had this in you. I also on first impression agree with almost everything you wrote. Whether you realize it or not I am actually one of your fans. I am not trying to antagonize you, just prompt you to use critical analysis of your wealth of knowledge and data to give an opinion on a subject asked in a less than perfect manner.” - Lighthunmust


----------



## Lighthunmust (May 23, 2011)

I don't mean to sound rude, but if your going to ask peoples opinions to your criteria Lighthunmust, you shouldn't be so nay-saying of theirs, although it might be to get them to explain.
Since you have been a little roughshod, what is your pre-concieved choice of aircraft to your criteria?, listing the points you wish to make as an example to others. - razor1uk

You are not being rude. Any perceived “roughshod” behavior or “nay-saying” was to provoke critical thinking. This thread I started does not have a poll attached for a very good reason. I did not want it to devolve into just another easy to thoughtless check off a box beauty contest or homage to sentimental favorites. I admit to willing to get under peoples skins if that is what it took to make them rationally justify their choices. As to my pre-conceived choice of aircraft based on the criteria: I am still in the elimination phase, but initially I presumed the aircraft would be larger than average, have an air-cooled engine, and be of U.K. or U.S.A. design. I am very much in agreement with most of Shortround6’s analysis. Quite frankly I find the topic of this thread hard as hell and pushing my abilities toward the limit. I perhaps should have spent more time crafting it, but even with more time, I think Shortround6 may have been able to create a more precise method of eliciting the same information. - Lighthunmust

“Our fellow member Shortround6 myself have exchanged many cyberspace barrages, yet I've never felt he was being obtuse. He made me do a lot of research, and I've learned a lot from his posts. You can try, too.” - tomo pauk

I think if you read all the above you must realize now that you are preaching to the choir. - Lighthunmust


----------



## tomo pauk (May 23, 2011)

ctrian said:


> LOL i actually expected you to use Mike Williams site.Take a look at Russian tests ...ah those Ruskies must be jealous of all that performance.
> Axis History Forum • View topic - P-51 and P-47 in USSR: pilot opinions



Something wrong with Russian data re. P-51 capabilities - 370 mph at WEP rating for V-1710-39?



> Oh and don't play dumb you said i should read ,then tell me what to read!



How about changing the attitude? 
After that, write down a list of the stuff you're read already, so I don't point you in the right direction (unlike I've pointed you to the Mike's site).



Lighthunmust said:


> ...
> “Our fellow member Shortround6 myself have exchanged many cyberspace barrages, yet I've never felt he was being obtuse. He made me do a lot of research, and I've learned a lot from his posts. You can try, too.” - tomo pauk
> 
> I think if you read all the above you must realize now that you are preaching to the choir. - Lighthunmust


 
?? 
If I reply to a post, that post was made in the past, not in the future. 
A simple sentence saying 'sorry, Shortround6, I was wrong to call you obtuse' would've been much better effort.


----------



## ctrian (May 23, 2011)

No something wrong with the data you have,or to put it better it's not representative of actual combat aircraft in the field.I'm not even going to respond to your second part.


----------



## tomo pauk (May 23, 2011)

In case you think data from Mike Williams' site is false, or non-applicable for in-service planes, there is nothing I can do about that.


----------



## ctrian (May 24, 2011)

It has already been mentioned on this very site several times that he has data that are _too good _for allied planes.You can choose to believe what you want just be careful when you meet people that also have access to other sources.


----------



## Shortround6 (May 24, 2011)

I think people need to look at his site and take from it what is presented. In some cases the planes are experimental or trials versions and in some cases they are not. In a few cases he presents documents showing what the manufacturers promised to deliver. Now is he claiming that these figures are the true performance of the plane or is he presenting a historical document that has the manufacturer's claim/promise. In the case of many of the Allied planes weights during the test are given. In some cases planes are ballasted instead of carrying real guns, the weight is there but the drag of protruding gun barrels might not be. If these are different than service weights that will affect things as will such 'minor' things as finish. See the difference in speed for some night fighters caused by a coat of flat black paint. I doubt locally applied camouflage paint jobs are going to factory smooth in all cases. Also be aware that ANY plane will have a production tolerance both in weight and performance of several percent. 

Now if somebody can show where Mr. Williams has altered a historical document to make the Allied plans look better that would be one thing. That some other people may have different historical documents is another. If he is posting graphs he has personally made using just a few data points these should be noted as such. If they are graphs that are of historical origin and noted as such they should be taken as such.

I would also note that the "test" figures are often rather high for Russian planes because they had a lot of trouble getting the production planes to the same level of fit and finish. Production planes could be 20-30kph slower than the prototypes. 
I will also note that several American manufacturers often promised more than they could deliver. Bell and Curtiss come to mind right away.


----------



## ctrian (May 24, 2011)

I will agree with you that the problem is not so much the site but the way many people use the data.If you don't understand power ratings ,performance at different altitudes, with different weights you just grab the highest number you can find and then come to a forum and post the *official *numbers.I think everyone should try to check his sources AND keep in mind that aircaft in the field didn't always run on WEP for example.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 24, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> I think people need to look at his site and take from it what is presented. In some cases the planes are experimental or trials versions and in some cases they are not. In a few cases he presents documents showing what the manufacturers promised to deliver. Now is he claiming that these figures are the true performance of the plane or is he presenting a historical document that has the manufacturer's claim/promise. In the case of many of the Allied planes weights during the test are given. In some cases planes are ballasted instead of carrying real guns, the weight is there but the drag of protruding gun barrels might not be. If these are different than service weights that will affect things as will such 'minor' things as finish. See the difference in speed for some night fighters caused by a coat of flat black paint. I doubt locally applied camouflage paint jobs are going to factory smooth in all cases. Also be aware that ANY plane will have a production tolerance both in weight and performance of several percent.
> 
> Now if somebody can show where Mr. Williams has altered a historical document to make the Allied plans look better that would be one thing. That some other people may have different historical documents is another. If he is posting graphs he has personally made using just a few data points these should be noted as such. If they are graphs that are of historical origin and noted as such they should be taken as such.
> 
> ...



I agree, I think if someone wants to get the correct figures you have to take it from several sites and then meet somewhere in the middle. That is why graphs and what not will never give a true representation. But for the majority of us that is all we will ever have to go off.


----------



## davparlr (May 24, 2011)

ctrian said:


> @ tomo pauk . Speed with what? zero fuel and engine running on 110%? If it was so good why was it replaced by the B/C/D? As for the comment on the eastern front i am awaiting your sources which show dogfights at 30.000ft.Don't keep me waiting for long though i want to learn.


 
Some SL speeds of contemporary fighters

P-51(Allison 1710-39) *360 mph* Brit test Mustang I Oct, 1942, power available *1150 hp*
P-51A (Allison 1710-81) *374 mph* WEP AF test aircraft #43-6007 dtd 2 APR 1943, power available *1470hp (340 mph at 1125 hp)*
Spitfire IX *336 mph* Brit test 17 March 1943, power available *1560hp*
Fw-190A-3 *335mph* FW document, power available *1730hp* 
Bf-109F *326mph* Kurfurst site, power available *1300hp*

I suspect all of these airspeeds have some airframe clean up associated with it which was typical of high speed flight test.

The P-51/51A was a good solid aircraft which was very fast, but with high altitude limitations. Speed verses horsepower available was impressive. Another real indicator of the P-51 future greatness was the combat radius, better than 300 miles on internal fuel, nothing the other aircraft listed could come close to. It did not take rocket science for the AAF or the RAF to realize the P-51 was something special. Now, if we just had a good high altitude engine. 



> .Take a look at Russian tests ...ah those Ruskies must be jealous of all that performance.
> Axis History Forum • View topic - P-51 and P-47 in USSR: pilot opinions
> Oh and don't play dumb you said i should read ,then tell me what to read!


 this is, of course testing the Mustang I, the very first Mustang version and not near the performance of even the P-51A.



> I will agree with you that the problem is not so much the site but the way many people use the data.



So, why criticize the site?

Shortround6 and DerAdler have done a great job of explaining the rationale that should be used. Quite often, Spitfireperformance is the only source of detailed test information available and I have no rationale to doubt the veracity of the site in posting government and subcontractor data.


----------



## Shortround6 (May 24, 2011)

A Very nice post Dave. 

My only quibble is this part


davparlr said:


> I suspect all of these airspeeds have some airframe clean up associated with it which was typical of high speed flight test.



While testing was done with good condition aircraft it was usually done without any extra special "tweaking" 

While 'tweaked" performance numbers might look good in an advertisement they could come back to bite contractors. I don't know about other countries but in the US a lot of aircraft contracts were written with bonus and penalty clauses. A contractor might get a few dollar bonus for every plane delivered that posted a speed a certain amount over the contract speed and an bit of an extra bonus for every mph over the minimum bonus speed. Likewise the contractor had to pay a penalty for every plane that failed to meet a certain minimum speed allowance below the contract speed. With more penalties for every mph below the penalty threshold. There were often similar clauses for weight. Build a plane more than a few % overweight from the contract weight and the contractor payed a penalty. OK, they didn't "pay" but the penalties were subtracted from what the government paid at the end of the contract so the contractor lost money. 
Using "tweaked" performance numbers in the contract was setting up the contractor for a fall. Either he padded the costs to begin with or he was facing a lot of re-rigging, and hand polishing of aircraft to get them through the tests. Any extra testing (fuel, pilot time, etc) would be at the contractors expense. 

There is no doubt that a plane right out the door of the factory may perform better than one that has spent several months on a tropical island in monsoon rains or in the North African desert in sand storms with a number of hard landings or taxing across rough airfields not to mention field repairs of minor battle damage, but the idea that a large number of these "official" tests were done with specially 'massaged' aircraft wouldn't seem logical. 
It would just remove the "official" figures just that much further from 'field' reality.

This not to say that a plane in a fly-off competition might not have a few "extra" hours spent on the finish in order to "win" a contract. 

Other countries contract practices may differ of course. Being sent to the front in a "penal" battalion might be the leas to af a Russian factory managers worries if too many planes fail to meet the "official" performance "specs"


----------



## ctrian (May 24, 2011)

The P-51 was also larger than the Spit and the Bf so that may also have something to do with the extra range.See nothing in life is free....
Regarding the site i ask again that people be careful with data that make Allied fighters seem *leaps and bounds *better than Axis ones.Especially when data posted about German aircraft are lower than shown in German reports.That's all.


----------



## tomo pauk (May 24, 2011)

What on-line resource should you recommend? Can you substantiate the claim that Allied data about German planes was (more often) used, rater than German data?


----------



## Shortround6 (May 24, 2011)

ctrian said:


> The P-51 was also larger than the Spit and the Bf so that may also have something to do with the extra range.See nothing in life is free....


 And that is one reason ( a big one) why it didn't climb as well as either of them on the same power. And why it needed a longer runway.


----------



## davparlr (May 24, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> A Very nice post Dave.
> 
> My only quibble is this part
> 
> ...


 
I have quite often seen during reviews of flight test reports where gun ports have been taped over, gaps filled, aircraft polished, etc., surprisingly, usually during military test. That tends to throw in a variable into test results. I tend to think this is not abnormal as the thought may be lets clean this thing up and see what it will do.



ctrian said:


> The P-51 was also larger than the Spit and the Bf so that may also have something to do with the extra range.See nothing in life is free....



The P-51 did indeed carry more fuel, which allowed for such range but do not dismiss the fact that the P-51 was probably the most energy efficient prop fighter in WWII, as indicated by the the hp required for airspeed at SL.



> Regarding the site i ask again that people be careful with data that make Allied fighters seem leaps and bounds better than Axis ones.Especially when data posted about German aircraft are lower than shown in German reports.That's all.


For all my comparisons, I try to get data from official test reports where available, usually from Spitfireperformance for Allied aircraft. For German aircraft, I use what I have gotten from Soren, now banned, and Kurturst, both of which represent good German data, I think.



Shortround6 said:


> And that is one reason ( a big one) why it didn't climb as well as either of them on the same power. And why it needed a longer runway.


Although one also has to be careful of reverse discrimination with the P-51. Often wing loading, power loading and climb is based on a fuel load which is significantly more than, say, the Spitfire or Bf-109. The P-51B carried 269 gallons of internal fuel, the Bf-109, 106 gallons, a substantial difference in performance. Also, the P-51 is no slouch when it comes to climb. The P-51B, in the fall of 1944, when the Fw-190D arrived, was approved for 75" boost. At this performance level, the P-51B would climb almost identically to the vaunted Fw-190D-9, and have roughly equal speed up to 20k and up where the P-51B was clearly superior.


----------



## Lighthunmust (May 24, 2011)

LISTED BELOW IS ADDITIONAL CRITERIA SUGGESTED BY POSTERS TO THIS THREAD. I AM PLACING A NOTE ON THE POST ESTABLISHING THIS THREAD DIRECTING NEW VIEWERS TO THIS POST NUMBER. I HAVE ALSO PLACE A NOTE DIRECTING NEW VIEWERS TO POST #72 FROM SHORTROUND6.


It must consistently prevail in fighter versus fighter contest assuming equal pilot skill. That is the fundamental metric. from post 3, drgondog


Production Cost
A critical issue for everyone except the USA. Germany was able to produce 30,000 Me-109s and 20,000 Fw-190s because both aircraft were relatively inexpensive. from post 11, davebender

Upgrade potential
Is the airframe large enough to a accomodate new engines, weapons and larger fuel tanks? If not then you must immediately begin design of a follow-on aircraft. from post 34, davebender

Gunsight. Weapons. 
from post 38, by davebender


1. Performance (speed ,roll rate,acceleration ,climb rate etc)
2. Cost
3. Durability 
4. Stability
5. Firepower
6. Visibility from cockpit
7. Range
8. Serviceability 
9. Radio
10. Gunsight 
11. Automated controls
Etc etc etc

from post 30, ctrian

Yep and don't forget cost and serviceability. For example the Bf-109 was not only a great little aircraft but it was very cheap to produce.If an airforce has equipment that require few hours in the hangar they can fly more sorties than the enemy and defeat him even when numerically outnumbered! from post 40, ctrian

Please go to the listed post number to read members reasons for suggestion or choice.

Hurricane by Readie post #5 and#19

Spitfire in post #8 and Sea Fury in post #10 by Tomo Pauk

Martin Baker MB 5 by fastmongrel in post #17

P-47 by GrauGeist in post #27

Corsair by Freebird in post #29

F4U Corsair by BiffF15 in post #51

Bf109 by Ctrian in post #55

Tempest II and P-47 in post #72 by Shortround6

I have not made my choice yet, but I am down to P-47, F4U, Tempest II, and Sea Fury.

A big THANK YOU to all members who are participating in this thread.

With the posting of additional criteria from members, and member suggestions and choices in posts #100 and #101; I hope more of you will take the time to post your carefully considered criteria and choices. THX


----------



## bobbysocks (May 24, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> And that is one reason ( a big one) why it didn't climb as well as either of them on the same power. And why it needed a longer runway.


 
i dont know about beating a the spit ...but i know of one gentleman who got into a climbing battle with a 109 and the twice the bf stalled before the stang....which proved to be the fatal undoing of that LW pilot. this was a 51 B in 44....no idea which 109 version but it was said to have had a round spinner so i would take that as later then an E.


----------



## Lighthunmust (May 24, 2011)

bobbysocks said:


> i dont know about beating a the spit ...but i know of one gentleman who got into a climbing battle with a 109 and the twice the bf stalled before the stang....which proved to be the fatal undoing of that LW pilot. this was a 51 B in 44....no idea which 109 version but it was said to have had a round spinner so i would take that as later then an E.


 
Would that be Bud Anderson in the Old Crow? Bobbysocks, how about taking a look at the original and additional criteria and making a choice?


----------



## ctrian (May 25, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> And that is one reason ( a big one) why it didn't climb as well as either of them on the same power. And why it needed a longer runway.


 
Very good observation ,you see a man named Boyd thought about combat performance and came to the conclusion that a very important variable is Power/Weight.American aircraft would not do so well if you look at that metric.



tomo pauk said:


> What on-line resource should you recommend? Can you substantiate the claim that Allied data about German planes was (more often) used, rater than German data?


 

You can look at Kurfurst's site plus of course this site for very long threads about which aircraft was better.When people argue so much a lot of interesting data gets posted ,some of it may not be in agreement with the ones you have .*Thesis + Anthithesis = Synthesis*


----------



## tomo pauk (May 25, 2011)

Kurfurst's site is excellent source, but the original tables documents from there those from Williams' site pretty much agree with each other.
It would been cool from you to point me (us?) at a site that has more credible data about Allied planes (compared with Williams' site), if such one exists, of course.
In other words, since you were the one that disputes that site, you need to substantiate your claims.


----------



## ctrian (May 25, 2011)

Actually Kurfurst posted the problems with that site here.I have a jpg he made comparing the speeds given by MW and the ones reported by German sources.Just use the search function.
You said : _It would been cool from you to point me (us?) at a site that has more credible data about Allied planes (compared with Williams' site), if such one exists, of course.
In other words, since you were the one that disputes that site, you need to substantiate your claims_

Let me repeat myself since i wasn't clear the first time ...*plus of course this site for very long threads about which aircraft was better.When people argue so much a lot of interesting data gets posted ,some of it may not be in agreement with the ones you have * .


----------



## tomo pauk (May 25, 2011)

In other words: *I* have to find the evidence that should make *your* point, not you? Isn't that great, or what?

If you have the jpg, why don't you post it here, either in this thread, or a new one?


----------



## Lighthunmust (May 25, 2011)

I think you should continue your dialog in a new thread and let this one get back to what it is supposed to be: determining criteria to make a decision. The debate on whose sources are "garbage", etc. etc. is not proving productive. Please post any criteria you think appropriate, then use all the criteria to make a choice. After you make your choice then you can dispute the source of data used to make it. Earlier in this thread I asked Shortround6 if he was being deliberately obtuse. Which, Tomo Pauk, in American idiom does not mean he is intellectually deficient, it means acting as if you don't understand to avoid answering a question you don't like. I am now asking both you and Ctrian the same question. Don't ask for any unnecessary apologies. Please respect the intent of this thread or move on. All of your esoteric data source arguments are most certainly a impediment to other members participating. Thanking you in advance for your cooperation - Lighthunmust.


----------



## tomo pauk (May 25, 2011)

No hard feelings, man 
You're request(s) are reasonable, so I'll comply.


----------



## Lighthunmust (May 25, 2011)

tomo pauk said:


> No hard feelings, man
> You're request(s) are reasonable, so I'll comply.


 
Thank you. Like Shortround6, I think you are a pretty sharp guy. I really would appreciate you taking the time to "work the problem" and post a choice. It would really impress me if someone could back-up the choice of a liquid cooled fighter with a good, detailed, explanation. I think it can possibly be done.


----------



## ctrian (May 25, 2011)

Lighthunmust i apologize for partially derailing your post.I'm not going to respond to that guy anymore.


----------



## tomo pauk (May 25, 2011)

I've proposed Hurricane just to point to the issues when comparing stuff from 1939 vs. stuff from 1945.

For my money, it's a toss up between P-47N, F4U-4 and Tempest II/Sea Fury. All of them were great performers, with mature airframe systems, decent punch (Tempest/SF has slight edge here), and (at least on paper) decent survivability. P-47 would've been a more expensive choice IIRC.


----------



## Lighthunmust (May 25, 2011)

ctrian said:


> Lighthunmust i apologize for partially derailing your post.I'm not going to respond to that guy anymore.



Thank you. You're a sharp guy, how about working the problem and giving me details and a choice. I would really like to see someone make a credible case for a liquid cooled fighter, but please don't let that bias your choice.


----------



## ctrian (May 25, 2011)

For the German side the best overall performer is the Fw190 .Great fighter and can be used in the ground attack role.By 1944 it was used in both roles complementing the Bf109 and superseding the Stuka.Maybe this is close to what you’re looking for.Of course you know _Jack of all trades, master of none_


----------



## Shortround6 (May 25, 2011)

Lighthunmust said:


> Upgrade potential
> Is the airframe large enough to a accomodate new engines, weapons and larger fuel tanks? If not then you must immediately begin design of a follow-on aircraft. from post 34, davebender
> 
> Gunsight. Weapons.
> from post 38, by davebender



In most cases these are unnecessary. If you are using a plane from 1945 as your selection it is already using one of the biggest, baddest engines of WW II, there is nothing to upgrade to. It will also being using the latest (or rather last) weapons fit of WW II and will have nothing to upgrade to. a 1945 selection will also be equipped with a 1945 gunsight and not need upgrading. 

Using the Tempest II, where do you go from a 2500hp Centaurus engine? upgrade to what? It has four MK V Hispanos with 750rpm cycle rate. 50 rounds a second, 1/2 the rate of Vulcan gun, What are you going to upgrade to? 
P-47N already has a 2800hp engine, upgrade to what?


----------



## pbfoot (May 25, 2011)

Been following this thread and decided to opt for the Corsair F4U without naval equipment it would sure help out performance, also like the US radial engine and the aircrafts allround capabilitiy it sure must be in the top 10 for every catagory you can think of


----------



## Lighthunmust (May 25, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> In most cases these are unnecessary. If you are using a plane from 1945 as your selection it is already using one of the biggest, baddest engines of WW II, there is nothing to upgrade to. It will also being using the latest (or rather last) weapons fit of WW II and will have nothing to upgrade to. a 1945 selection will also be equipped with a 1945 gunsight and not need upgrading.
> 
> Using the Tempest II, where do you go from a 2500hp Centaurus engine? upgrade to what? It has four MK V Hispanos with 750rpm cycle rate. 50 rounds a second, 1/2 the rate of Vulcan gun, What are you going to upgrade to?
> P-47N already has a 2800hp engine, upgrade to what?


 
Are you sure in most cases unnecessary? Sometimes a few minor superior attributes add up over time to a very large advantage. The Tempest you mentioned was after all originally equipped with “ one of the biggest, baddest engines of WW II” and it was upgraded to a completely different engine.

As far as “the latest (or rather last) weapons fit of WW II”, remember this is a scenario where you are limited to one fighter aircraft type for all missions. Perhaps efficient accomplishment of a mission would require an upgrade for example to 20mm or 30mm cannon instead of the eight .50s in a P-47 or .50cals for a Tempest II. The capability and ease of doing could minor detail for the Criteria. If your primary opponent on a mission outnumbers you with relatively easy to shoot down aircraft, more .50cal bullets would be preferable to less 20mm shells. Perhaps for some missions an upgrade to a single really large cannon for each wing would be advantages. How well can your fighter’s wing handle it? Even though the history after WW2 quickly decided that cannon rather than .50s was the way to go, in WW2 it may or not be depending on the mission. The improved post WW2 fire control systems are the primary reason for it now being much easier to hit with less ammunition expenditure. 

A P-47N may have benefited from additional equipment to provide even more horsepower for low altitude performance comparable to the Tempest II and the same could be said for Tempest II performance at high altitude, if the airframes can take it.

Are we really sure that all gunsights in 1945 are equal, couldn’t one manufacture/nation have sight have small advantages that add up over time?

You mentioned in an early post that the Centaurus engine had a great career after the war with long overhaul intervals, what about after battle damage occurs, does a sleeve valve engine hold up as well as a conventional radial? Perhaps it doesn’t and you decide to change to a R-2800 like most air racers have out of necessity due to parts I assume. We already know this “upgrade” is possible in the Sea Fury, one of the planes that could be a contender in this thread. 

Awhile back someone mentioned Boyd. I’ve got Coram’s “Boyd”. No doubt Boyd was very astute about small light-weight fighters and energy management. That being said when you are limited to only one type of fighter, as you are in this scenario; light, fast and maneuverable up/down/sideways is not enough. You have to do most things well enough, and small light-weight fighters (A6M, P-39, Yak-3, etc.) do not do this.



pbfoot said:


> Been following this thread and decided to opt for the Corsair F4U without naval equipment it would sure help out performance, also like the US radial engine and the aircrafts allround capabilitiy it sure must be in the top 10 for every catagory you can think of


 
Thanks for participating. Some participants certainly agree with you. No doubt it would be in the top 10, and more likely the top 5.


----------



## Shortround6 (May 25, 2011)

Lighthunmust said:


> Are you sure in most cases unnecessary? Sometimes a few minor superior attributes add up over time to a very large advantage. The Tempest you mentioned was after all originally equipped with “ one of the biggest, baddest engines of WW II” and it was upgraded to a completely different engine.
> 
> As far as “the latest (or rather last) weapons fit of WW II”, remember this is a scenario where you are limited to one fighter aircraft type for all missions. Perhaps efficient accomplishment of a mission would require an upgrade for example to 20mm or 30mm cannon instead of the eight .50s in a P-47 or .50cals for a Tempest II. The capability and ease of doing could minor detail for the Criteria. If your primary opponent on a mission outnumbers you with relatively easy to shoot down aircraft, more .50cal bullets would be preferable to less 20mm shells. Perhaps for some missions an upgrade to a single really large cannon for each wing would be advantages. How well can your fighter’s wing handle it? Even though the history after WW2 quickly decided that cannon rather than .50s was the way to go, in WW2 it may or not be depending on the mission. The improved post WW2 fire control systems are the primary reason for it now being much easier to hit with less ammunition expenditure.
> 
> A P-47N may have benefited from additional equipment to provide even more horsepower for low altitude performance comparable to the Tempest II and the same could be said for Tempest II performance at high altitude, if the airframes can take it.



I think I missed the part about not only selecting any fighter but being able to upgrade it with any engine or guns or equipment from any nation regardless of who made the airframe in first place. 

I think I also missed the part about not only being able to select a 1945 fighter to use in 1939 but being able to upgrade it ways that never happened even post war.

This is getting too "IFFY" for me. I am out.


----------



## Lighthunmust (May 25, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> I think I missed the part about not only selecting any fighter but being able to upgrade it with any engine or guns or equipment from any nation regardless of who made the airframe in first place.
> 
> I think I also missed the part about not only being able to select a 1945 fighter to use in 1939 but being able to upgrade it ways that never happened even post war.
> 
> ...


 
Well first off, thanks for your participation as you have been invaluable in your contributions. I am very sorry you have decided to opt out of the thread. I think you are forgetting this is not reality, but a thought experiment with its own reality. Even in the actual reality of WW2 I don't think it is impossible to consider using equipment from allies. I think it is fair to apply this thinking to this scenario. No where does the scenario imply being able to use equipment "from any nation". Just because in reality an "upgrade" did not occur, does not mean it couldn't. Being "IFFY" unfortunately is a prerequisite if a thought experiment is to succeed in getting the participants to use unconventional thinking to test conventional thinking. 

I hope you will change your mind about contributing. Of all the posters you are the one who has done the most to cause all of us to exercise and expand our intellect. Again, Thank you - Lighthunmust


----------



## davparlr (May 25, 2011)

ctrian said:


> Very good observation ,you see a man named Boyd thought about combat performance and came to the conclusion that a very important variable is Power/Weight.American aircraft would not do so well if you look at that metric.


 

Okay, let’s look at that metric, power loading, weight/power, the lower the better. Let’s look at four very critical altitudes for combat, 15k, 20k, 25k, and 30k.
All data is based on fighter weight. Data on the P-51D is post May, 1944.

15k
P-51D *5.3*
P-47D-25 *5.6*
P-47M *4.74*
F4U-4 *5.4*
Bf-109G *5.5*
Fw-190A-3 *5.5*
Fw-190D-9 *5.1*
Ta-152H *5.5*

20k
P-51 *6.0*
P-47D *5.6*
P-47M *4.74*
F4U *5.4*
Bf-109 *5.7*
Fw-190A *5.8*
Fw-190D *6.0*
Ta-152 *6.2*

25k
P-51 *6.9*
P-47D *5.6*
P-47M *4.74*
F4U *5.7*
Bf-109 *6.9*
Fw-190A *7.1*
Fw-190D *7.5*
Ta-152H *7.4*

30k
P-51 *7.4*
P-47D *5.6*
P-47 *4.74*
F4U *7.0*
Bf-109 *8.3*
Fw-190A *8.9*
Fw-190D *9.5*
Ta-152 *7.8*

It is obvious that from May, 1944 on, the P-51, and the P-47 above 20k, owned the sky from 15k to 30k over Germany in power loading. Only at discrete points was the P-51 short on power loading to various German aircraft. The P-51B would do even better as it is lighter.

Note that the power loading of the P-47D-25 and P-47M never varies from 15k to 30k. That is because the P-47D was flat rated at 2300hp to 31k, and, the P-47M and the P-47N, the most powerful pair of single engine aircraft in the war, were flat rated an incredible 2800hp to 33k. 

American aircraft didn’t seem to do so bad here.

It must be noted that the Germans and the Allies had aircraft such as the Bf-109K and P-51H that would out perform the listed aircraft in power loading, but these types played little to no role in the fight (so did the Ta-152, but I wanted to include it as many consider it the epitome of fighter aircraft). As to the Ta-152, if I were to go up past 40k, it would over take the P-47M as power loading champ.


----------



## Shortround6 (May 25, 2011)

From your post #116 "As far as “the latest (or rather last) weapons fit of WW II”, remember this is a scenario where you are limited to one fighter aircraft type for all missions. Perhaps efficient accomplishment of a mission would require an upgrade for example to 20mm or 30mm cannon instead of the eight .50s in a P-47 or .50cals for a Tempest II. The capability and ease of doing could minor detail for the Criteria. If your primary opponent on a mission outnumbers you with relatively easy to shoot down aircraft, more .50cal bullets would be preferable to less 20mm shells. Perhaps for some missions an upgrade to a single really large cannon for each wing would be advantages."

The allies never had a 30mm cannon. The American 37mm won't fit INSIDE a wing leaving either the British 40mm gun or German guns over 20mm (unless you use Russian guns?) 

"thought experiment with its own reality" Once we get into a German "player" being able to pick the Tempest II and arm it with MK 103 cannon and equip it with Nitrous Oxide for altitude performance we really have gone into another reality and one that is so far from being referenced back to anything that could "prove" the sponsor's position (or a critic's) that a discussion of the capabilities of such a modified airplane are meaningless. 

Respectfully


----------



## Lighthunmust (May 25, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> From your post #116 "As far as “the latest (or rather last) weapons fit of WW II”, remember this is a scenario where you are limited to one fighter aircraft type for all missions. Perhaps efficient accomplishment of a mission would require an upgrade for example to 20mm or 30mm cannon instead of the eight .50s in a P-47 or .50cals for a Tempest II. The capability and ease of doing could minor detail for the Criteria. If your primary opponent on a mission outnumbers you with relatively easy to shoot down aircraft, more .50cal bullets would be preferable to less 20mm shells. Perhaps for some missions an upgrade to a single really large cannon for each wing would be advantages."
> 
> The allies never had a 30mm cannon. The American 37mm won't fit INSIDE a wing leaving either the British 40mm gun or German guns over 20mm (unless you use Russian guns?)
> 
> ...



I can tell you really hate the way this thread is conceived! Thanks for coming back anyway. I understand the point you are making, however I think you could be a little more flexible about the evolution of details of this thread. Never did I think anyone would assume this thread was in anyway reality based. There are no "German players". 

No one is implying the installation of a wing internal 37mm, it is obviously absurd. But like a Stuka, perhaps some of our possible choices could externally mount larger guns.

The thread is about finding the aircraft with the most versatility (historical and theoretically possible) to be the best one and only choice. Doing this in a thought experiment can enable better analysis of actual reality.

Thank you for the respectful submission. I wish I had done a better job establishing this thread but I am doing the best I can to correct any clarity of intent issues and define parameters. Thank you for any patience you can extend.


----------



## ctrian (May 26, 2011)

What weight? What power? Are you looking at the high altitude Bf109 or only the standard version? I'm sorry but i couldn't help laughing when i saw the P-47 ,the flying bucket was an energy fighter? The things i learn at this site....


----------



## Lighthunmust (May 26, 2011)

ctrian said:


> What weight? What power? Are you looking at the high altitude Bf109 or only the standard version? I'm sorry but i couldn't help laughing when i saw the P-47 ,the flying bucket was an energy fighter? The things i learn at this site....


 
I am confused by this posting. To what other posting are you referring? What is the distinction between an "energy fighter" and a, for lack of a better term, "non-energy fighter" that you are implying? Don't all fighters use energy management to maneuver in all directions?

"the P-47, the flying bucket" That's funny! Tell me how you really feel about the Jug! I am sure there are other members who share your sentiments. Is it a bucket full of harmless lead fishing sinkers or a bucket full of deadly lead bullets? A bucket of Bull $#!+ reputation or a bucket of Kick @$$ reputation? If we were in England during 1943 I would think I was reading the thoughts of a pilot from the 4th. I think a pilot from a T-bolt squadron flying over Korea in 1945 may have expressed a different sentiment.


----------



## ctrian (May 26, 2011)

I was referring to the post by davpalr .You see when checking thrust/weight at different altitudes you need to specify the rating ,is it Combat? War Emergency ? MW-50? and i think the Bf109 version is the standard G6 when there were versions with high altitude performance like the G/AS,ASM and the G10,K4.As for the P-47 it was too heavy so that affected acceleration and climb rate.If you look at a graph of its climb its like the right side of a U stretched out ,really poor....Of course it had firepower , survivability and high altitude performance but it was the exact opposite of an energy fighter."Energy fighter" means lots of thrust plus small weight so the aircraft has excess energy available for maneuvers.


----------



## Lighthunmust (May 26, 2011)

ctrian said:


> I was referring to the post by davpalr .You see when checking thrust/weight at different altitudes you need to specify the rating ,is it Combat? War Emergency ? MW-50? and i think the Bf109 version is the standard G6 when there were versions with high altitude performance like the G/AS,ASM and the G10,K4.As for the P-47 it was too heavy so that affected acceleration and climb rate.If you look at a graph of its climb its like the right side of a U stretched out ,really poor....Of course it had firepower , survivability and high altitude performance but it was the exact opposite of an energy fighter."Energy fighter" means lots of thrust plus small weight so the aircraft has excess energy available for maneuvers.



Thank you for the clarification.


----------



## davparlr (May 26, 2011)

ctrian said:


> I was referring to the post by davpalr .You see when checking thrust/weight at different altitudes you need to specify the rating ,is it Combat? War Emergency ? MW-50? and i think the Bf109 version is the standard G6 when there were versions with high altitude performance like the G/AS,ASM and the G10,K4.As for the P-47 it was too heavy so that affected acceleration and climb rate.If you look at a graph of its climb its like the right side of a U stretched out ,really poor....Of course it had firepower , survivability and high altitude performance but it was the exact opposite of an energy fighter."Energy fighter" means lots of thrust plus small weight so the aircraft has excess energy available for maneuvers.


 
First, I want to say that I am far more interested in getting the right data than I am in making an argument. If you have reasonable data that shows different data than I have, please provide it to me. I will update my charts and correct my posts.

I believe data I have on the DB605 engine came from the Kurfurst site. It reflects performance at Start-u.Notleistung, whatever that means, but it was the best performance for the engine. Here are the engine ratings at altitude.

15k (4.5 km) 1355 hp (close enough to PS)
20k (6 km)1320 hp this may be a bit high
25k (7.6km) 1080 hp
30k (9.1km) 900 hp

The weight used was 7480 lbs.

Again, if you have better numbers, please let me know.

The values for the P-47D-25 was 
Power 2300 hp WEP at all altitudes
Weight was 13,000 lbs Fighter (design weight with 205 gallons of gas) as defined in Dean’s “America’s Hundred Thousand.
Power loading at all altitudes was 5.6 lbs/hp.
For the P-47M, power was 2800 hp WEP at all altitudes
Weight was 13275 lbs. 
Power loading at all altitudes was 4.74 lbs/hp

The P-51D and the P-47D were front line fighters of the US in mid ’44 till wars end and German aircraft would likely engage these when attacking bombers or on raids. I am not sure the Allied aircraft would see more than just a handful of the advanced Bf-109s like the K, G-10 etc.

I have a book, German Combat Planes, by Ray Wagner and Heinz Nowarra that says that the Bf-109K-6 generated 1150 hp at 8000 m or 26,250 ft., and had a gross weight of 3626 kg or 7977 lbs., which, if true, would provide a load factor of 6.9 lbs/hp., which is still higher than the load factor of the P-47D-25 at that altitude at 5.6 lb/hp. Few people realize the power that the P-47 had at altitude where that big turbocharger comes into play. That is probably why the Joint Fighter Conference in Oct., 1944 selected the P-47 as the best all around fighter above 25k ft.

Acceleration is directly proportioned to load factor. Climb is a bit trickier.


----------



## Lighthunmust (May 26, 2011)

For some reason after reading the last post the following thought went through my head.

Gentlemen prefer blondes (Bf109, P-51, Spitfire), but Gentlemen marry brunettes (Fw190, P-47, F4U).

It must be the whimsey of early senility or the medication I'm taking.

I am not making fun of the serious issue of good sources. I think we all should list sources when we can and vet them with the members.

Remember this a tread about determining criteria for making a choice, so please provide both when you can.


----------



## ctrian (May 27, 2011)

I have heavier weight for the P-47 and lighter for the Bf (it depends on model and source I guess).You are comparing WEP which was 5 min power.The Bf109G/AS was available in 1st half '44.And you only look at 15.000ft and above? Hmmm why would you limit the comparison there? Climb is not trickier check a table for the P-47 it was a horrible climber. My point being that you can't just grab some stats keep the ones you like post them online and show that one aircraft or another ''rocked''.All aircraft had their good and bad points and their best altitudes.US aircraft were heavy because they needed to be ( more fuel) this affected acceleration and climb rate.However thanks to their supercharger they had superior energy at higher altitudes.For these reasons they would *not* be a good choice for Germany or the SU ,since they used their aircraft in lower altitudes.


----------



## ctrian (May 27, 2011)

Also the weight of the P-47 does not agree with what i have seen in flight sims and wikipedia (14.500-17.000 loaded).Your weight of the Bf is the one of K4 that is the heaviest variant built.Strange that both differences point to one direction.I think you have taken the performance of the Bf109G6 and divided by the weight of the K4 take a look at the DB605DB/DC with MW-50 .


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 27, 2011)

ctrian said:


> flight sims and wikipedia



Just to get a clarication here, do you consider flight sims and wikipedia good sources?


----------



## ctrian (May 27, 2011)

I’ve used Kurfust's site for the Bf data plus what he has posted here .Flight sims have an *actual paying audience * plus they have to create a whole physics engine so they definitely try to get the most accurate data .If you look at their forums you'll see that many people complain about some performance differences and the producers come in and address those problems.If you're asking me if it's a better source than MW site the answer is yes with a capital Y.WW2 aircraft didn’t run on 10% fuel with engine at 110% ,that’s not realistic.


----------



## pbfoot (May 27, 2011)

ctrian said:


> .If you're asking me if it's a better source than MW site the answer is yes with a capital Y.WW2 aircraft didn’t run on 10% fuel with engine at 110% ,that’s not realistic.


----------



## Lighthunmust (May 27, 2011)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Just to get a clarication here, do you consider flight sims and wikipedia good sources?


 
Sims and Wikipedia would be my last choices for dependable data. Books with footnotes, lengthy bibliographies, and authors with lengthy good reputations would be my second. Harder to get primary sources my first if I had the time to devote to research. I realize many people for whatever reason may have limited access to good books and primary sources, but mentioning sims and wiki to back an argument immediately raises red flags to credibility. 

"My point being that you can't just grab some stats keep the ones you like post them online and show that one aircraft or another ''rocked''." - Ctrian

You are absolutely correct. This is why this thread was created. Picking criteria for use in the scenario presented was to eliminate a parade of postings of beauty queens and sentimental favorites with no critical analysis. This is why there is no poll at the top of the thread.


----------



## ctrian (May 27, 2011)

Lighthunmust said:


> Sims and Wikipedia would be my last choices for dependable data. Books with footnotes, lengthy bibliographies, and authors with lengthy good reputations would be my second. Harder to get primary sources my first if I had the time to devote to research. I realize many people for whatever reason may have limited access to good books and primary sources, but mentioning sims and wiki to back an argument immediately raises red flags to credibility.
> 
> "My point being that you can't just grab some stats keep the ones you like post them online and show that one aircraft or another ''rocked''." - Ctrian
> 
> You are absolutely correct. This is why this thread was created. Picking criteria for use in the scenario presented was to eliminate a parade of postings of beauty queens and sentimental favorites with no critical analysis. This is why there is no poll at the top of the thread.


 
I'm surprised by some people here .Flight sims use the *same resources*(books,reports) known to all of you *plus* they have to deal with players that have a huge collection of documents and post them in the forums to force changes in the game stats.Who do you think has more accurate data someone who has to defend them all day against knowledgeable people or someone who simply posts one report without mentioning others that may or may not agree with them? If you think one source is 100% accurate and entirely not biased what can I say go for it.The allied aircraft were obviously supersonic during the war…


----------



## Lighthunmust (May 27, 2011)

ctrian said:


> I'm surprised by some people here .Flight sims use the *same resources*(books,reports) known to all of you *plus* they have to deal with players that have a huge collection of documents and post them in the forums to force changes in the game stats.Who do you think has more accurate data someone who has to defend them all day against knowledgeable people or someone who simply posts one report without mentioning others that may or may not agree with them? If you think one source is 100% accurate and entirely not biased what can I say go for it.The allied aircraft were obviously supersonic during the war…


 
All sources have bias. IMHO game makers have a stronger motivation for creating a fun game that will make them money than in ensuring data accuracy. How many people would continue to buy and play a game were one adversary consistently has the advantage? 

I freely admit my own bias of being an old fart who doesn't like video games. 

Allied aircraft were supersonic during the war, they were called bullets.


----------



## ctrian (May 27, 2011)

Well if you check their forums you'll see that they have a high degree of professionalism. That is everything dealing with in game stats must be sourced preferably from a wartime report.On the other hand I can create a website and post something.It may or may not be true…you don’t know , it may be the best reports I could find…you don’t know , it could be the worst reports I could find…you don’t know.First find lots of sources of information and then check them do they tell you the same things? Is the combat record agreeing with them? If an aircraft is supposed to have a huge advantage over another then that should be obvious in battle .If it isn’t maybe something is wrong…For example in battle you don’t fly at 10% fuel and with engine ALWAYS stuck on 110% (it blows up).

PS: I have the feeling your thread is being derailed again


----------



## pbfoot (May 27, 2011)

Sims are great for games and such but you would be hard pressed to find an operational aircraft that actually reached the numbers that were accrued during flight tests further more flight tests are very dependent on the pilot and as in aircraft not all pilots are equal.


----------



## Lighthunmust (May 27, 2011)

ctrian said:


> Well if you check their forums you'll see that they have a high degree of professionalism. That is everything dealing with in game stats must be sourced preferably from a wartime report.On the other hand I can create a website and post something.It may or may not be true…you don’t know , it may be the best reports I could find…you don’t know , it could be the worst reports I could find…you don’t know.First find lots of sources of information and then check them do they tell you the same things? Is the combat record agreeing with them? If an aircraft is supposed to have a huge advantage over another then that should be obvious in battle .If it isn’t maybe something is wrong…For example in battle you don’t fly at 10% fuel and with engine ALWAYS stuck on 110% (it blows up).
> 
> PS: I have the feeling your thread is being derailed again



You make valid points and I admit my knowledge of simulations is limited. You are certainly right about fuel load and power settings.

Considering all the controversy with data and sources: perhaps it is impossible to determine what the best piston fighter is in this scenario. However, I do think it is possible to determine what the majority of posters think is the best. The majority does not have the absolute truth, but they do have accepted truth. This thread allows the determination of the accepted truth and an opportunity to challenge it. I wish more members would post their criteria and choices. I will do another summary of criteria and choices like I did in posts #100 and #101 when more members make postings. Considering the passion many of us have for these aircraft, I am surprised more people haven't taken the opportunity to express their opinions.


----------



## ctrian (May 27, 2011)

pbfoot said:


> Sims are great for games and such but you would be hard pressed to find an operational aircraft that actually reached the numbers that were accrued during flight tests further more flight tests are very dependent on the pilot and as in aircraft not all pilots are equal.


 
That's what i have been saying all along.

@Lighthunmust : I have no problem admitting the superiority of the P-47 and P-51 in high altitude against the standard Bf109 and Fw190.Against the Bf AS the difference is very small and in the field it would not be noticed.But neither do I forget what happens at lower altitudes.If the American aircraft were given to Germany they would not do well simple as that.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 27, 2011)

Lighthunmust said:


> Sims and Wikipedia would be my last choices for dependable data.



I agree, and that is why I asked.


----------



## Lighthunmust (May 27, 2011)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I agree, and that is why I asked.


 
I knew you did. I was just elaborating on your point. It would great for a Moderator, pilot, and military crew chief to weigh in with their criteria and detailed explanation of their choice. How about it?

Off topic. Have you seen the simulation running today on CNN of the Air France crash? What a nightmare for an air crew poorly trained for this event. The big question: why didn't they recognize the stall and drop the nose? I wonder how aware the passengers were of something very wrong. Some reports are that they would be aware of it.


----------



## jim (May 27, 2011)

Air france accident appears to be very tragic and very embarassing. With full respect to the crew, i feel that-sometimes- commercial pilots in their high tech ,everything automatic comfortable cocpits , eventually lose the "feeling" of flying , they transform from pilots to train drivers . Their world is the colour tft screens , and the buttons . Simulators are good, training is good, but perhaps from time to time should practise basic flying in low tech aircrafts

Ps if such accidents happen to modern fully equiped planes, i can not speculate what accidents rates sufferd the poorly equiped russian fighters in the russian winters


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 27, 2011)

Lighthunmust said:


> I knew you did. I was just elaborating on your point. It would great for a Moderator, pilot, and military crew chief to weigh in with their criteria and detailed explanation of their choice. How about it?



I was never a pilot in the military, only a UH-60 crew chief.

As for the topic of the thread, I have not decided on any criteria as of this time. I have however enjoyed reading the thread. I will eventually chime in with my thoughts however, after I have thought about it some more.


----------



## davparlr (May 27, 2011)

ctrian said:


> I have heavier weight for the P-47 and lighter for the Bf (it depends on model and source I guess).You are comparing WEP which was 5 min power. '


I always use max power available to the pilot for comparison as explained later. If the value used for the Bf-109 is not the max power available, please let me know.



> The Bf109G/AS was available in 1st half 44.


but in what quantity



> And you only look at 15.000ft and above? Hmmm why would you limit the comparison there?


Because that is where the bombers were and where the Germans had to operate at to affect the bomber offensive. On the Western front, this is where the air war would be won or lost, not at low altitude as was the Eastern front. Why would you only want to look at just low altitude?



> Climb is not trickier check a table for the P-47 it was a horrible climber.


 trickier only that the P-47 power advantage doesn’t transfer into climb superiority. However, it is not a dog. The P-47D-25 climb performance at these altitudes are superior to the Fw-190A, similar to the Fw-190D-9 and the Bf-109, but noticeably less than the Bf-109K



> My point being that you can't just grab some stats keep the ones you like post them online and show that one aircraft or another ''rocked''.


I choose to compare aircraft at best rated hp because this is what the pilots used when they needed it. Whenever combat reports include power settings your read statements that indicated they went full bore, throttle full forward, I was pulling more than 75”, etc. Also, I select fuel quantities that are on a more even levels just in order to compare aircraft at similar load factors. As far as altitude goes I usually go from SL to 35k, but in this case, I wanted to emphasis that were it mattered, American aircraft was not constrained by load factors. 




> All aircraft had their good and bad points and their best altitudes.US aircraft were heavy because they needed to be ( more fuel) this affected acceleration and climb rate.However thanks to their supercharger they had superior energy at higher altitudes.For these reasons they would not be a good choice for Germany or the SU ,since they used their aircraft in lower altitudes.



A good generalized point.



> Also the weight of the P-47 does not agree with what i have seen in flight sims and wikipedia (14.500-17.000 loaded).


Internal fuel for the P-47 goes from a design load of 205 gallons to a full internal load of 370 gallons. The 14,500 lbs represent a P-47D-25 with full internal fuel, extra water and oil, on departure for a long escort or strike mission. The Bf-109 carries about 106 gallons. Comparing a Bf-109 with106gallons of fuel to a fully loaded P-47, with 379 gallons of fuel does not seem useful in understanding the full performance of the airframe.




> Your weight of the Bf is the one of K4 that is the heaviest variant built.Strange that both differences point to one direction.I think you have taken the performance of the Bf109G6 and divided by the weight of the K4 take a look at the DB605DB/DC with MW-50 .



After checking Kurfurst, which I can’t believe I didn’t do, I agree with you. Weight he shows is about 3400kg or 7495 lbs. Using theDB605 DB power of 1600 hp at 6000 m, around 20k ft, the load factor is an impressive 4.7, better than even the mighty P-47M. However, it might drop off quickly from there. The Bf-109K was a real hot rod.



> I’ve used Kurfust's site for the Bf data plus what he has posted here .Flight sims have an actual paying audience plus they have to create a whole physics engine so they definitely try to get the most accurate data .If you look at their forums you'll see that many people complain about some performance differences and the producers come in and address those problems.If you're asking me if it's a better source than MW site the answer is yes with a capital Y.WW2 aircraft didn’t run on 10% fuel with engine at 110% ,that’s not realistic.



You won’t get much support from this site on a comment like this. There are just too many members with real flight time and who are familiar with the efforts and risks of simulating aircraft performance. If I were to categorize an aircraft performance to music recordings, I would say a aircraft is an LP (vinyl) in that it is full analog. A simulator developed by a subcontractor would be maybe an MP3 at a 128 kbps, after millions of dollars spent on development and special hardware. I would be surprised if video games would make the 64 kbps level. But this is my opinion. Any other opinions?


----------



## pbfoot (May 27, 2011)

A question from a "dummy" are these flight test results taking into account all the variables that affect flight such as temp, humidity etc?
Also as mentioned in other threads is fit and finish of the aircraft was it polished or painted. there are so many variables I find it hard to believe a Russian/LW/RAF/ USAAF test results would concur with other as they are all using different aircraft with different engines with different hours


----------



## Lighthunmust (May 27, 2011)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I was never a pilot in the military, only a UH-60 crew chief.
> 
> As for the topic of the thread, I have not decided on any criteria as of this time. I have however enjoyed reading the thread. I will eventually chime in with my thoughts however, after I have thought about it some more.


 
Some how I got the impression you also had a license or were working on the hours to get one. 

I took a few rides on the crashhawk in the 80's.

Glad your enjoying the thread and really appreciate the input.

Great post davparir!



pbfoot said:


> A question from a "dummy" are these flight test results taking into account all the variables that affect flight such as temp, humidity etc?
> Also as mentioned in other threads is fit and finish of the aircraft was it polished or painted. there are so many variables I find it hard to believe a Russian/LW/RAF/ USAAF test results would concur with other as they are all using different aircraft with different engines with different hours



This is so true. Even today when any type of equipment is tested, the variation in test parameters between manufacturers in the same country sometimes makes comparison very difficult.



jim said:


> Air france accident appears to be very tragic and very embarassing. With full respect to the crew, i feel that-sometimes- commercial pilots in their high tech ,everything automatic comfortable cocpits , eventually lose the "feeling" of flying , they transform from pilots to train drivers . Their world is the colour tft screens , and the buttons . Simulators are good, training is good, but perhaps from time to time should practise basic flying in low tech aircrafts
> 
> *Ps if such accidents happen to modern fully equiped planes, i can not speculate what accidents rates sufferd the poorly equiped russian fighters in the russian winters*


*
* Bold added for emphasis by Lighthunmust

This situation you bring up supports the high priority for better than average inherent crew survival qualities to be built into a fighter, without them I do not see how a fighter could be considered the best. Wartime pilots crash alot, and are more often targets than shooters.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 27, 2011)

Lighthunmust said:


> Some how I got the impression you also had a license or were working on the hours to get one.
> 
> I took a few rides on the crashhawk in the 80's.



I unfortunately have not done any private flying in years...

The "Crashhawk" is a great aircraft. I really miss her, but that unfortunately does not pertain this topic...


----------



## Lighthunmust (May 27, 2011)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I unfortunately have not done any private flying in years...
> 
> The "Crashhawk" is a great aircraft. I really miss her, but that unfortunately does not pertain this topic...


 
It most certainly is great. I had a Blackhawk crew chief as friend when I was at Bragg in the 80's and he liked to refer to it as such. They were still working out the "bugs" back then and there was fond sentiment for the Huey. Same with me regarding the private flying.


----------



## Lighthunmust (May 27, 2011)

ctrian said:


> That's what i have been saying all along.
> 
> @Lighthunmust : I have no problem admitting the superiority of the P-47 and P-51 in high altitude against the standard Bf109 and Fw190.Against the Bf AS the difference is very small and in the field it would not be noticed.But neither do I forget what happens at lower altitudes.If the American aircraft were given to Germany they would not do well simple as that.


 
Set your TiVo to TCM HD for Sunday 1:00AM MST so you can see Germany using P-51s to shoot down P-47s.


----------



## ctrian (May 28, 2011)

@davpalr : i generally agree with what you wrote ,note that people were quick to attack me but noone bothered to actually check your data.I don't think you made a deliberate mistake but i will tell you again that WEP is not the best way to compare power.Best if you use combat.Now you mentioned numbers. For the Bf109AS in this or another forum someone posted the number of new and converted AS in 1st half '44 as 846.That's not an insignificant number.However the numerical difference between Allies and Luftwaffe was so great that even if ALL Bf ‘s were of the AS type it would make no difference .The air war was pure attrition.
For the P-47 -Bf weights: maybe then we need to see what the weight would be at the point of battle.Both aircraft would have burned a lot of fuel.
For sims: I never suggested that someone limit himself to only one source.But these people have a financial reason to use the most accurate data available and their audience demands it.


----------



## ctrian (May 28, 2011)

Lighthunmust said:


> Set your TiVo to TCM HD for Sunday 1:00AM MST so you can see Germany using P-51s to shoot down P-47s.


 
Huh?


----------



## Njaco (May 28, 2011)

ctrian said:


> For sims: I never suggested that someone limit himself to only one source.But these people have a *financial* reason to use the most accurate data available and their audience demands it.


 
I would suggest that is not the best criteria for determining accurate data. The truth would be much better.


----------



## Lighthunmust (May 28, 2011)

ctrian said:


> Huh?


 
The movie "Fighter Squadron" will be shown on Turner Classics Movie channel. It was filmed right after the war. There were lots of P-47s and P-51s in ANG units. The movie uses P-47s for the Americans and P-51s to represent German fighters. It is pretty corny, but has great shots, no pun intended, of the aircraft.


----------



## ctrian (May 28, 2011)

Njaco said:


> I would suggest that is not the best criteria for determining accurate data. The truth would be much better.


 
What is the truth?

@Lighthunmust : Ehm you know that we don't have that channel in Greece right?


----------



## Njaco (May 28, 2011)

Thats what research and good sources are for. Its just my opinion but money shouldn't be an incentive for research. And Flight Sim sites - again, in my opinion - are not the place to look for data.

Lighting - can you list what criteria so far (that everyone has agreed) that would be acceptable? Don't want to add something already posted.


----------



## ctrian (May 28, 2011)

Njaco said:


> Thats what research and good sources are for. Its just my opinion but money shouldn't be an incentive for research. And Flight Sim sites - again, in my opinion - are not the place to look for data.
> 
> Lighting - can you list what criteria so far (that everyone has agreed) that would be acceptable? Don't want to add something already posted.


 
So you think people who create a whole physics engine and have to feed it with data ''make'' up the numbers? and their customers some of whom have whole rooms filled with wartime reports say nothing? I don't agree .If you find something wrong with the data they have go post in their forum and the mod will check it.It doesn't get more ''open'' than that.


----------



## fastmongrel (May 28, 2011)

Sims are not real life they are a bunch of 1s and 0s. I used to race motorbikes and rally cars. While I was never very succesful I did put a lot of laps on various tracks throughout the Britain, Ireland and the Isle of Man so I do know a bit about racing motorbikes and cars (and crashing them but we wont go there )

I have played on motorbike racing, rallying, formula 1 and CART sims and they are not like it really is anyone who thinks they can practise and then go out and race in real life is in for a really short painful sharp shock. Sim racing vehicles dont handle like the real life they dont respond to the throttle like real life and you cant red line an engine for 30 mins without it going bang.

Sims are just that a simulation not real.


----------



## davparlr (May 28, 2011)

ctrian said:


> @davpalr : i generally agree with what you wrote ,note that people were quick to attack me but noone bothered to actually check your data.I don't think you made a deliberate mistake but i will tell you again that WEP is not the best way to compare power.Best if you use combat.



I will have to disagree with you on this. Less that max power may be what you would want to use for maneuvering for combat, but when it comes to yanking and banking and the bullets flying are not virtual, all the power you can get is life or death to you and victory or defeat in combat.



> Now you mentioned numbers. For the Bf109AS in this or another forum someone posted the number of new and converted AS in 1st half '44 as 846.That's not an insignificant number.


Please clarify this statement. Is 846 an airspeed number of some sort?



> However the numerical difference between Allies and Luftwaffe was so great that even if ALL Bf ‘s were of the AS type it would make no difference .The air war was pure attrition.


An undeniably true statement, but to dismiss allied aircraft as being inferior to German aircraft and won only because of numbers is incorrect. Except for the jet, all the advanced German propeller driven aircraft could be matched by Allied aircraft of equal or better performance, except maybe the Ta-152H at altitudes above 35k ft. But then I don't thing nitrous was particularly rocket science.


> For the P-47 -Bf weights: maybe then we need to see what the weight would be at the point of battle.Both aircraft would have burned a lot of fuel.


This is a valid point and one I have pondered for quite a while. In my mind there are only two useful comparisons between aircraft. One, which I did above, is to compare the aircraft under similar load levels, which provides capability of the aircraft design itself. This is certainly the easiest do and certainly tends to represent parity of combat in some scenario, though maybe fleeting or rare, of battle. The one you describe is the conditions likely at the onset of battle. This one is quite variable and tends to take a lot of work. Just looking at the P-47D-25. If we took it at a long distance escort and combat starts right after external tank jettison, then the combat weight of the P-47 would be close to the 14,000 lb point that you indicated, while the Bf-109 would be at a bit less, burning off climb fuel, than published loaded weight. However in the summer of '44 and later, when mainland European fields became available, then the P-47 would be more likely to have the smaller fuel weight.


> For sims: I never suggested that someone limit himself to only one source.But these people have a financial reason to use the most accurate data available and their audience demands it.


Again, industry, trying to model aircraft for operations simulator purposes, spend millions of dollars on software and hardware, something I do not think game people can do or have the expertise to do. This is not to say that video game software is not a valid tool for training pilots, it is, just that it is not a precise copy of aircraft aerodynamics and environment. And whatever you do, do not believe that if you are good in a video simulator, that you would be good in an aircraft. The environment is totally different with g loads, vertigo, vibration, noise, aircraft physical communications with the pilot, physical exertions, FEAR, etc., etc., etc.


----------



## tyrodtom (May 28, 2011)

I race too, with some sucess, the feedback thru the wheel, brakes , your butt, etc. your awareness of them,and what they mean are the MOST important part of driving at the edge and getting the most out of a car. I've yet to find a racing sim that even comes close to a realistic feel or response.

I'm just a low time pilot , but i'm enough into it to see that feel thru the controls is a very important part of flying, even more so when you're at the edge of the aircraft's performance envelope. The sims i've seen can show you very little of this, and nothing realistic. Graphs and charts can only tell you so much, the pilot is the determining factor, and his need for feedback can't be supplied by a sim. A little buzz or shake, in the hand controls doesn't cut it.


----------



## Lighthunmust (May 28, 2011)

ctrian said:


> What is the truth?
> 
> @Lighthunmust : Ehm you know that we don't have that channel in Greece right?


 
It may be available in Greece from a residential satellite dish. I will be recording from Dish Network. This satellite TV provider also provides residents of the U.S. with programing from other nations. Perhaps a Greek provider has this channel from the U.S.


----------



## Lighthunmust (May 28, 2011)

Njaco said:


> Thats what research and good sources are for. Its just my opinion but money shouldn't be an incentive for research. And Flight Sim sites - again, in my opinion - are not the place to look for data.
> 
> Lighting - can you list what criteria so far (that everyone has agreed) that would be acceptable? Don't want to add something already posted.



If you look at posting #1 you will see notes on the locations of this information. I would not say the "everyone has agreed" on criteria, but there has been very little disagreement about criteria per say. One of the best things to come out in this thread is the disagreement over what sources of performance data for applying the criteria are the best. I was planning to do another summary of significant posts when we reached post #200. I think I better get started on that sooner because of the important discussions on sources. I have been closely following these discussions and have some thoughts about how we can address the issue in the most practicable way. Before I do that, please consider the following: most of the performance data issues concern the charts and tables of speed, climb rate, turning radius, roll rate, range, etc.. What I don't see being addressed are the myriad other factors affecting ultimate performance of pilots and aircraft over a period of combat usage. That kind of data chart and table is harder to come by. I'll get an update and some additional thoughts up as soon as possible. Thank you for your interest in the thread.


----------



## Lighthunmust (May 28, 2011)

davparlr said:


> I will have to disagree with you on this. Less that max power may be what you would want to use for maneuvering for combat, but when it comes to yanking and banking and the bullets flying are not virtual, all the power you can get is life or death to you and victory or defeat in combat.
> 
> 
> Please clarify this statement. Is 846 an airspeed number of some sort?
> ...


 
I understand Ctrian's argument, but have to believe that no matter what the actual validity of simm data, it should be less trusted than other types of sources I listed in an earlier posting. When a conflict between sources occurs, I think it wise to rely on books with footnotes, a lengthy bibliography, written by authors with good reputations, and any primary sources that can be examined.


----------



## ctrian (May 28, 2011)

I think there is a misunderstanding between the *engine *of a sim and the *data* that goes into it. I’m talking about the data. 
Davpalr I agree with you 100%.The 846 is not speed man  it’s number produced.Let me give you the entire quote as I found it : 
_The 226 G6/AS was from MTT Regensburg. A further 460 were conversions. in addition to 160 G-5/AS, which brings the total of AS engined 109's built in the first 5-6 months of 1944 to: 846 aircraft_


----------



## davparlr (May 28, 2011)

ctrian said:


> I think there is a misunderstanding between the *engine *of a sim and the *data* that goes into it. I’m talking about the data.
> Davpalr I agree with you 100%.The 846 is not speed man  it’s number produced.Let me give you the entire quote as I found it :
> _The 226 G6/AS was from MTT Regensburg. A further 460 were conversions. in addition to 160 G-5/AS, which brings the total of AS engined 109's built in the first 5-6 months of 1944 to: 846 aircraft_


Thanks for the clarification. There is no doubt that there were some German aircraft including the Bf-109K and other versions that the P-51 nor the P-47 wanted to tangle with. Unfortunately for the Germans, they were either too few or too late or both to help stop the onslaught.


----------



## Readie (May 28, 2011)

I have followed this thread and have to admit to a spot of confusion chaps...
What criteria should be used for determining the best land based piston fighter?
Please sum it all up...
Cheers
John


----------



## Lighthunmust (May 28, 2011)

Readie said:


> I have followed this thread and have to admit to a spot of confusion chaps...
> What criteria should be used for determining the best land based piston fighter?
> Please sum it all up...
> Cheers
> John


 
To sum it up: it is a work in progress. The most important thing to remember about this thread is it has it own reality, it is not historical from the stand point of what did or could have taken place in WW2. The thread asks you to do a deceptively complex task and the way it asks for this could have been presented with more clarity and precision. As the thread evolved I have tried to address clarity and precision issues. Start by carefully reading Posting #1 and the notes added at the bottom. Read the posts mentioned in the notes and read my post #161. Thank you for your patience.


----------



## davparlr (May 28, 2011)

An enigma to me is the Vought F2G-1, which went into production. It was very fast at SL, 399 mph, but rather slow at altitude, 431mph at 16400 ft. It seems that with a good supercharger it would have made an incredible plane. The Republic XP-72, using the same engine, had very impressive performance, around 490 mph at altitude. Of course it had a turbo. Still, you would think the F2G-1 would have been pretty good, but it faded away.


----------



## P-40K-5 (May 28, 2011)

Lighthunmust said:


> I think you may want to give this a little more analysis. Bf109 losses due to pilot error were so extremely high due to its landing gear that alone may be reason for elimination, amongst other reasons.


 
the Bf109's landing gear had very little to do with it. green pilots raising the tailwheel before the rudder became effective
was the primary reason for broken 109's. the trick was to build up sufficiant speed " fly it on the ground", while keeping
the tailwheel on the ground. one corrected the yaw with the brakes. once the rudder became effective, let the tail come up.
flying and landing the 109 was easy. and in reality, it was more like 10% loss to ground accidents. thanks.


----------



## Shortround6 (May 28, 2011)

"Good" superchargers for work at 20,000ft and up are incredibly bulky and require an inter-cooler/after-cooler to reach anywhere near their full potential. 

See: http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/F4U/F4UIS.gif

Please note that shows only one side of the intake system for a F4U. The size of the piping/ducts and inter-cooler would have to go up in proportion. The size of a two stage supercharger and inter-cooler system to feed a 4360 cu in engine might nave been more than they could fit in the Corsair.


----------



## Lighthunmust (May 28, 2011)

P-40K-5 said:


> the Bf109's landing gear had very little to do with it. green pilots raising the tailwheel before the rudder became effective
> was the primary reason for broken 109's. the trick was to build up sufficiant speed " fly it on the ground", while keeping
> the tailwheel on the ground. one corrected the yaw with the brakes. once the rudder became effective, let the tail come up.
> flying and landing the 109 was easy. and in reality, it was more like 10% loss to ground accidents. thanks.



What is your source for this detailed explanation and percentage of loss? In forty years of reading I have never come across this. I have a very hard time believing that what I have heard about its landing characteristics, especially on unimproved strips, caused by the narrow gear with angled wheels was not a major contributor to loss also. You never here much about Spitfires having as much of a problem and I have read it was due to not having angled wheels. For forty years it has been gospel that approximately a third of 109s were lost to accidents on the ground. Please enlighten me if I am wrong.


----------



## Lighthunmust (May 28, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> "Good" superchargers for work at 20,000ft and up are incredibly bulky and require an inter-cooler/after-cooler to reach anywhere near their full potential.
> 
> See: http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/F4U/F4UIS.gif
> 
> Please note that shows only one side of the intake system for a F4U. The size of the piping/ducts and inter-cooler would have to go up in proportion. The size of a two stage supercharger and inter-cooler system to feed a 4360 cu in engine might nave been more than they could fit in the Corsair.


 
Thanks for returning, as before your contributions are invaluable. At what point does does the weight and complexity of engine driven supercharging become impractical compared to the weight and complexity of exhaust driven turbosupercharging?


----------



## P-40K-5 (May 28, 2011)

Lighthunmust said:


> What is your source for this detailed explanation and percentage of loss? In forty years of reading I have never come across this. I have a very hard time believing that what I have heard about its landing characteristics, especially on unimproved strips, caused by the narrow gear with angled wheels was not a major contributor to loss also. You never here much about Spitfires having as much of a problem and I have read it was due to not having angled wheels. For forty years it has been gospel that approximately a third of 109s were lost to accidents on the ground. Please enlighten me if I am wrong.


 
Gunther Rall. Had the pleasure of meeting him a few years back at The Virginia Bader Aviation art museum at John Wayne Airport out in California.
They were promoting Nicholas Trudjian's Aviation Art book. I purchased the book and both singed it. 

anyways,

thats the reasoning he gave for the " mis-information" on the messer.


----------



## Shortround6 (May 28, 2011)

Lighthunmust said:


> Thanks for returning, as before your contributions are invaluable. At what point does does the weight and complexity of engine driven supercharging become impractical compared to the weight and complexity of exhaust driven turbosupercharging?



It is hard to say because nobody ever set up the SAME engine with both a TWO stage-engine driven supercharger and a TWO stage turbo-supercharger and got the same performance. The R-2800 is one of two engines that had both systems and the Turbo-engine (P-47) could make 2000hp fairly early on at 27,000ft. 52" of manifold pressure and 2700RPM. The Corsair got 1650hp at 53" manifold pressure/2700RPM at 21,000ft (no ram)/23,000ft(ram). It was under 1500hp in a climb at 27,000ft. How much is that 33% more power at 27,000ft worth in weight and complexity? 
The only other engine to use both a two stage Turbo and a two stage mechanical drive is the Allison and it gets very hard to compare because while the P-38 used inter-coolers for it's turbos the P-63 did not use an inter-cooler for it's engine which limited power right there (even if it was simpler). The post war P-82 used inter-cooled Allisons with two mechanical drive stages but by that time the P-38 was out of production and there was no equivalent model turbo engine to compare to.


----------



## Lighthunmust (May 28, 2011)

P-40K-5 said:


> Gunther Rall. Had the pleasure of meeting him a few years back at The Virginia Bader Aviation art museum at John Wayne Airport out in California.
> They were promoting Nicholas Trudjian's Aviation Art book. I purchased the book and both singed it.
> 
> anyways,
> ...


 


That is a high quality source. I'll try to find mine for the other 20% of losses. I believe the 10% he claims is still relatively high in comparison to other fighters. Anyone have the stats for British and American fighters close at hand?


----------



## Lighthunmust (May 28, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> It is hard to say because nobody ever set up the SAME engine with both a TWO stage-engine driven supercharger and a TWO stage turbo-supercharger and got the same performance. The R-2800 is one of two engines that had both systems and the Turbo-engine (P-47) could make 2000hp fairly early on at 27,000ft. 52" of manifold pressure and 2700RPM. The Corsair got 1650hp at 53" manifold pressure/2700RPM at 21,000ft (no ram)/23,000ft(ram). It was under 1500hp in a climb at 27,000ft. How much is that 33% more power at 27,000ft worth in weight and complexity?
> The only other engine to use both a two stage Turbo and a two stage mechanical drive is the Allison and it gets very hard to compare because while the P-38 used inter-coolers for it's turbos the P-63 did not use an inter-cooler for it's engine which limited power right there (even if it was simpler). The post war P-82 used inter-cooled Allisons with two mechanical drive stages but by that time the P-38 was out of production and there was no equivalent model turbo engine to compare to.


 
I thought that may be a difficult question to answer. I guess we can only extrapolate and estimate. What amount of NO2 would a supercharged fighter need to carry to have adequate capability to compete against a turbosupercharged fighter during an average amount of time during combat maneuvers above 25K? I suspect an impracticable amount.


----------



## P-40K-5 (May 28, 2011)

Lighthunmust said:


> That is a high quality source. I'll try to find mine for the other 20% of losses. I believe the 10% he claims is still relatively high in comparison to other fighters. Anyone have the stats for British and American fighters close at hand?


 
one of the best sources of the 109. 

I think the problem (mis-information) lies with American Pilots test flying Bf109's during the big one in Europe.
they usually flown damaged a/c that got tweeked a little, resulting in unusual characteristics. I know the ones
shipped to the states ( may have been at the Curtiss-Wright factory not 100% sure) and rebuilt properly they had no problems
with.

this is just my humble opinion.


----------



## Lighthunmust (May 28, 2011)

P-40K-5 said:


> one of the best sources of the 109.
> 
> I think the problem (mis-information) lies with American Pilots test flying Bf109's during the big one in Europe.
> they usually flown damaged a/c that got tweeked a little, resulting in unusual characteristics. I know the ones
> ...



Would you agree the 109 suffered a significantly higher loss rate due to its landing gear than other fighters?


----------



## P-40K-5 (May 28, 2011)

Lighthunmust said:


> Would you agree the 109 suffered a significantly higher loss rate due to its landing gear than other fighters?


yes, but only as far too say during taxing. but not as a result of take-offs or Landings. as stated above for take-off accidents, landing accidents would obviously
be for a damaged a/c or running out of fuel. combine that with the primative airfields, I don't think to many a/c would fare well.

also, no doubt there were accidents that was the direct result of the landing gear. the angles caused quit a bit of stress and led to landing gear failor.
whether it was more so then other a/c.. hard to say.


----------



## Njaco (May 28, 2011)

P-40K is correct ...as there have been several threads on the forum over the years dscussing this.


----------



## Lighthunmust (May 28, 2011)

Njaco said:


> P-40K is correct ...as there have been several threads on the forum over the years dscussing this.


 
I'm leaning over the fence in your direction, but I'm not yet ready to climb over. If possible could you provide links please. Thank you.


----------



## Lighthunmust (May 28, 2011)

P-40K-5 said:


> yes, but only as far too say during taxing. but not as a result of take-offs or Landings. as stated above for take-off accidents, landing accidents would obviously
> be for a damaged a/c or running out of fuel. combine that with the primative airfields, I don't think to many a/c would fare well.
> 
> also, no doubt there were accidents that was the direct result of the landing gear. the angles caused quit a bit of stress and led to landing gear failor.
> whether it was more so then other a/c.. hard to say.


 
If a gear arrangement like the 109's and the Spitfire's was advantageous, more fighters would have had it. Messerschmitt dropped it for the ME309 in 1940. Supermarine dropped the arrangement in 1942 with the Spiteful. Why? Because the advantages of lightweight wings (faster roll rate, simplified wing design, etc.) did not outweigh the disadvantages of handling problems and load bearing problems.


----------



## P-40K-5 (May 28, 2011)

Lighthunmust said:


> If a gear arrangement like the 109's and the Spitfire's was advantageous, more fighters would have had it. Messerschmitt dropped it for the ME309 in 1940. Supermarine dropped the arrangement in 1942 with the Spiteful. Why? Because the advantages of lightweight wings (faster roll rate, simplified wing design, etc.) did not outweigh the disadvantages of handling problems and load bearing problems.


 
but we're not talking about spits or other fighters now. Willy made his 109 landing gear the way it is for two primary reasons. 

1. ease of transportation 
2. ease of field servicing when the wings have to come off.

he, nor most pilots, mechanics, etc. did not see the need to change it. I tend to agree.


----------



## Lighthunmust (May 29, 2011)

P-40K-5 said:


> but we're not talking about spits or other fighters now. Willy made his 109 landing gear the way it is for two primary reasons.
> 
> 1. ease of transportation
> 2. ease of field servicing when the wings have to come off.
> ...



I'm fairly sure flight performance was also a factor in the gear design.

Pilots and mechanics have been known to gloss over the weaknesses of aircraft they love.

Obviously Willy saw a need for change when designing a better performing aircraft than the 109. So did Supermarine when designing a successor to the Spitfire.

I don't think you will convince me that the 109s gear was not a greater liability than it was an asset.


----------



## ctrian (May 29, 2011)

Lighthunmust said:


> Would you agree the 109 suffered a significantly higher loss rate due to its landing gear than other fighters?


 
That is one of the many fairy tales about the bf same as it was too heavy too old etc.Many discussions here and in other places have shown it did not have a higher accident rate.


----------



## P-40K-5 (May 29, 2011)

Lighthunmust said:


> I'm fairly sure flight performance was also a factor in the gear design.
> 
> Pilots and mechanics have been known to gloss over the weaknesses of aircraft they love.
> 
> ...


 
the 109 right through to the 'K' series had basically the same L/G.. 

I don't need to convince you of anything... thats not my job. but for comparison, look up the take-off/landing
crash rate of the P-51 Mustang, with its wide 'stable' gear stance, as compared to the 109. I think you'll see the light.


----------



## pbfoot (May 29, 2011)

Here is a recent article about flying the 109 and a description of the undercarriage problems , it was done ny a current test pilot about 2yrs ago he alos has the Spit , Hurri, P40, Corsair , P51
Bounding Clouds - Flying the Messerschmitt Bf-109 > Vintage Wings of Canada


----------



## Lighthunmust (May 29, 2011)

pbfoot said:


> Here is a recent article about flying the 109 and a description of the undercarriage problems , it was done ny a current test pilot about 2yrs ago he alos has the Spit , Hurri, P40, Corsair , P51
> Bounding Clouds - Flying the Messerschmitt Bf-109 > Vintage Wings of Canada


 
The pilot may have doubts about the percentages, but he does indicate issues with the gear due to the wheel angle. How do you explain Messerschmitt abandoning this gear configuration in designs meant to replace the 109s. Of course the late model 109s retained the gear, it was impossible to change it! I don't think its anybodys "job" to convince me. This forum is just as susceptible to years of propagating miss-information as any other source. Show me the data that refutes my belief.


----------



## P-40K-5 (May 29, 2011)

Lighthunmust said:


> The pilot may have doubts about the percentages, but he does indicate issues with the gear due to the wheel angle. How do you explain Messerschmitt abandoning this gear configuration in designs meant to replace the 109s. Of course the late model 109s retained the gear, it was impossible to change it! I don't think its anybodys "job" to convince me. This forum is just as susceptible to years of propagating miss-information as any other source. Show me the data that refutes my belief.


 
yeah, the replacement for the 109.. most of the German/Finn pilots had ZERO I repeat ZERO complaints about the 109
l/g. the only ones that did complain for the most part are RAF USAAF pilots flying captured 109's. which, more then
likely were damaged. the Russians had no complaints for the most part.

thats what happens when one flys a/c with spacious cabins cup holders... the moment they fly a very " mechanical"
a/c the complaints start to fly (haha).

data vs the pilots who flew them in battle words? I'll take the pilots word anyday.


----------



## Lighthunmust (May 29, 2011)

P-40K-5 said:


> yeah, the replacement for the 109.. most of the German/Finn pilots had ZERO I repeat ZERO complaints about the 109
> l/g. the only ones that did complain for the most part are RAF USAAF pilots flying captured 109's. which, more then
> likely were damaged. the Russians had no complaints for the most part.
> 
> ...



The pilots you mention had little basis for comparison to other at that time modern fighters. Considering how dangerous combat was many probably disregarded concerns about the landing gear. I do consider the "pilots words" part of the data. This thread needs to get back on the topic of criteria and choices. Let us agree to disagree for now. I will never get the promised update done it if I keep this disagreement going. Thanking you in advance for your cooperation.


----------



## pbfoot (May 29, 2011)

Say what you might neither the 109 or Spit deserve to be in this conversation as far as fighters go they were at their best by dates in late 43, war had changed and they lacked one trait that the US fighters had the ability to project their power very far . It was the 109 that got smacked down by the 51 in 44 , although they had the advantage of radar , playing the part of the defender etc and the Spit was playing also ran because it couldn't take the war to the LW


----------



## P-40K-5 (May 29, 2011)

the P-51 gave the Bf109 the smackdown??? I don't think so. I'd check your sources again. when all was said
and done, the Bf109 came out ahead of all allied aircraft in the ETO MTO.

the B-17 layeth the smacketh down on the 109 if truth be known.

but yeah I guess when 150 Bf109's engage 700-800 fighters and 1100-1200 B-17's on a single mission, 2/3rds
of the 109's come home.. then yeah, thats a smackdown


----------



## ctrian (May 29, 2011)

pbfoot said:


> Say what you might neither the 109 or Spit deserve to be in this conversation as far as fighters go they were at their best by dates in late 43, war had changed and they lacked one trait that the US fighters had the ability to project their power very far . It was the 109 that got smacked down by the 51 in 44 , although they had the advantage of radar , playing the part of the defender etc and the Spit was playing also ran because it couldn't take the war to the LW


 
That's a very simplistic view.Have you thought whether each airforce had specific needs and needed aircraft with different performance characteristics?


----------



## pbfoot (May 29, 2011)

P-40K-5 said:


> the P-51 gave the Bf109 the smackdown??? I don't think so. I'd check your sources again. when all was said
> and done, the Bf109 came out ahead of all allied aircraft in the ETO MTO.
> 
> the B-17 layeth the smacketh down on the 109 if truth be known.
> ...


Yes the 109 had its way until the 51 arrived , *it could pick and choose when to fight * it had the advantage of ground control and fighting over its home territory the USAAF fighters negated this ability. please do not think that I am saying the US was better as it was far from that . When the 51 arrived in 43 the LW was waning and the 51 was able to complete the task that was started by Russians and Commonwealth


----------



## pbfoot (May 29, 2011)

ctrian said:


> That's a very simplistic view.Have you thought whether each airforce had specific needs and needed aircraft with different performance characteristics?


. If the LW could have it would have had these type of fighters tell me they were not aware of these shortcomings after the BoB. When they launched 109s after the B17s the 109s would sometimes not even make contact but would have to land and refuel and try and continue the chase


----------



## Readie (May 29, 2011)

pbfoot said:


> Say what you might neither the 109 or Spit deserve to be in this conversation as far as fighters go they were at their best by dates in late 43, war had changed and they lacked one trait that the US fighters had the ability to project their power very far . It was the 109 that got smacked down by the 51 in 44 , although they had the advantage of radar , playing the part of the defender etc and the Spit was playing also ran because it couldn't take the war to the LW



The Spitfire playing 'also ran'? to who?
The 'rhubarb missions' were very successfully accomplished by the later marks of Spitfire.(as well as other capable fighters)
The war against Germany was not all about bomber escorts.
Cheers
John


----------



## pbfoot (May 29, 2011)

Readie said:


> The Spitfire playing 'also ran'? to who?
> The 'rhubarb missions' were very successfully accomplished by the later marks of Spitfire.(as well as other capable fighters)
> The war against Germany was not all about bomber escorts.
> Cheers
> John


The Spit was past its best by date by 44 , it was a wonderful interceptor but there was little left to intercept. It had little range and its lack of range let the LW pick when and how to intercept that lovely aircraft. Yes it kept up in all the stats like speed and climb but was still restricted by its range , I believe RAAF and RCAF swapped over to the 51 as soon as the war ended. 
In 44 would you opt for the 51 or Corsair or the Spit... to me its a no brainer


----------



## Readie (May 29, 2011)

pbfoot said:


> The Spit was past its best by date by 44 , it was a wonderful interceptor but there was little left to intercept. It had little range and its lack of range let the LW pick when and how to intercept that lovely aircraft. Yes it kept up in all the stats like speed and climb but was still restricted by its range , I believe RAAF and RCAF swapped over to the 51 as soon as the war ended.
> In 44 would you opt for the 51 or Corsair or the Spit... to me its a no brainer


 
I agree, it is a no brainer..the Spitfire.But, then I am English 
After the Battle of Britain, the Spitfire became the backbone of RAF Fighter Command and saw action in the European, Mediterranean, Pacific and the South-East Asian theatres. The Spitfire served in several roles, including interceptor, photo-reconnaissance, fighter-bomber, carrier-based fighter, and trainer.
As I said earlier, defeating the Germans was not all about escorting bombers.
Apart from anything else the bomber command needed information....enter the photo recon Spitfire. High,fast and as far as Berlin.
Cheers
John


----------



## pbfoot (May 29, 2011)

Readie said:


> I agree, it is a no brainer..the Spitfire.But, then I am English
> After the Battle of Britain, the Spitfire became the backbone of RAF Fighter Command and saw action in the European, Mediterranean, Pacific and the South-East Asian theatres. The Spitfire served in several roles, including interceptor, photo-reconnaissance, fighter-bomber, carrier-based fighter, and trainer.
> As I said earlier, defeating the Germans was not all about escorting bombers.
> Apart from anything else the bomber command needed information....enter the photo recon Spitfire. High,fast and as far as Berlin.
> ...


I know my share of Spit ops and I have talked to enough Spit jocks .Its an iconic aircraft for the period of 40-43 but after that its an also ran IMHO. I believe it was Portal that said to make a fighter with the range of the 51 it would cease to be a fighter


----------



## Readie (May 29, 2011)

pbfoot said:


> I know my share of Spit ops and I have talked to enough Spit jocks .Its an iconic aircraft for the period of 40-43 but after that its an also ran IMHO. I believe it was Portal that said to make a fighter with the range of the 51 it would cease to be a fighter


 
Each allied fighter played its part, like Hollywood the P51 is celebrated Americana and rightly so but,with respect, you are not right to say that the Spitfire was an also ran by 1943.
Cheers
John


----------



## Lighthunmust (May 29, 2011)

How about we stop with the this could do that and that could not do this. Please apply the criteria already established in Posts #1 and #100 to what you think is the best choice and post the results.


----------



## Readie (May 29, 2011)

Lighthunmust said:


> How about we stop with the this could do that and that could not do this. Please apply the criteria already established in Posts #1 and #100 to what you think is the best choice and post the results.


 
Its always good to air views but, you are right. Sorry for the diversion....
Cheers
John


----------



## ctrian (May 30, 2011)

pbfoot said:


> . If the LW could have it would have had these type of fighters tell me they were not aware of these shortcomings after the BoB. When they launched 109s after the B17s the 109s would sometimes not even make contact but would have to land and refuel and try and continue the chase


 
So you mean that the LW would need an aircraft with 1).Range 2).Firepower to take on the B-17.Something like the Bf110 or Ju88 ? The versions used as nighfighters had these characteristics but they couldn’t face single engined fighters.If the Germans had the P-47 or P-51 how would they attack bombers? With the weak 0.5 inch guns?


----------



## tomo pauk (May 30, 2011)

.


----------



## ctrian (May 30, 2011)

tomo pauk said:


> .



 Did the P-51B/C/D have those guns? and the P-47 also had heavy cannons?
So in the end the Germans would trade one aircarft for another that had however poorer performance at altitude and needed higher octane fuel? Guess they were too dumb for that....


----------



## tomo pauk (May 30, 2011)

What makes you think it would've been impossible for Germans to install their cannons into P-51/-47? Or DB-605 into P-51 airframe?
Do you really think that installation of Packard Merlin forced cannons to be replaced by MGs?

German brass proved time again to be dumb anyway.

(sorry, Lighthunmust)


----------



## ctrian (May 30, 2011)

tomo pauk said:


> What makes you think it would've been impossible for Germans to install their cannons into P-51/-47? Or DB-605 into P-51 airframe?


 
Why on earth would they need to do such a thing ? What prevented them from using their own aircraft ? What possible advantage could they gain by such hypothetical experiments?


----------



## tomo pauk (May 30, 2011)

Replied @ new thread:

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/allied-airframes-german-parts-29221.html


----------



## Lighthunmust (May 30, 2011)

ctrian said:


> So you mean that the LW would need an aircraft with 1).Range 2).Firepower to take on the B-17.Something like the Bf110 or Ju88 ? The versions used as nighfighters had these characteristics but they couldn’t face single engined fighters.If the Germans had the P-47 or P-51 how would they attack bombers? With the weak 0.5 inch guns?


 


ctrian said:


> Why on earth would they need to do such a thing ? What prevented them from using their own aircraft ? What possible advantage could they gain by such hypothetical experiments?


 

During forty years of experience with firearms both in and out of the military, you are the first person I have ever encountered that described John Browning’s .50 caliber with the word “weak”.
Expense, redundancy, ease of maintenance, rapid fire, ammunition capacity, and most importantly sufficient power are qualities to be balanced against raw power.

From “Flying Guns, World War II” page 98 referring to the BoB

“In a comparison between the British fighters and the Bf109E, the striking difference in ammunition supply must be noted. The British fighters carried 300 rounds for each of their eight machine-guns, enough for sixteen seconds of fire. The Messerschmitt’s 20 mm cannon were restricted to 60-round drums, a supply for seven seconds. On the other hand it carried 1,000 rounds for each of the two rifle-calibre guns (this was reduced to 500 if an engine cannon was installed), and because the MG 17 was not particularly fast-firing, and synchronised as well, this supply was good for about a minute of fire! Because the cannon were far more destructive weapons that the machine-guns, the effectiveness as a fighter of the Bf 109 decreased sharply when they ran out of ammunition: but the German pilot still had some guns to defend himself with.”
“Clearly the low-velocity, low-rate-of-fire MG-FF was more suitable for dealing with bombers than with fighters, and the RAF would probably have benefited more from such a gun than the Luftwaffe did. Aside from this weapon and the very limited use of the Hispano by the RAF, both sides relied (too much) on rifle-calibre weapons. It has been claimed that Goring later said that the Luftwaffe could have won the battle if it had had the Browning .50 in.; even if he indeed said so he was probably wrong. But there was an awareness, on both sides, that the armament was not what it should have been. That there was an alternative was demonstrated in Belgium, where Avions Fairey completed two or three license-built Hurricanes with four 12.65 mm FN-Browning (.50 in. M2) guns before the country was overrun.” (bold add for emphasis by Lighthunmust)

Of course merely having the .50 would not have changed the outcome of the Battle of Britain! The Americans were not the only nation thinking four .50s was the way to go for balance of power and firing time. Fabrique Nationale could have easily provided rifle caliber guns. Perhaps if the Luftwaffe’s single engine fighters carried heavy machineguns with lots of ammunition and had the fuel efficiency of a Mustang for longer patrol times to shoot down the escort fighters, it would have allowed the twin engined bomber destroyers to be more effective. The .50 caliber MG with sufficient ammunition supply was a very good compromise of firing time and power for shooting down any WW2 aircraft. It was not weak, it was sufficient in power and efficient in all other areas of performance.


----------



## davparlr (May 30, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> "Good" superchargers for work at 20,000ft and up are incredibly bulky and require an inter-cooler/after-cooler to reach anywhere near their full potential.
> 
> See: http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/F4U/F4UIS.gif
> 
> Please note that shows only one side of the intake system for a F4U. The size of the piping/ducts and inter-cooler would have to go up in proportion. The size of a two stage supercharger and inter-cooler system to feed a 4360 cu in engine might nave been more than they could fit in the Corsair.


 
I see. Looking at an outline drawing, their appears to be no room for growth forward of the cockpit. The F2G-1 does not add any length to the F4U and the cockpit does not look to have been moved aft. The only way I can see for them to put the longer engine is is either to reduce the size of the fuel tank or to reduce the size of the compressor. Maybe a reduced compressor is the reason for such low performance at higher altitudes. The XP-72 with its aft turbocharger, had plenty of room to increase its size. In addition, a larger and heavier turbocharger located aft of the wings would mitigate the heavier R-4360 engine.


----------



## Lighthunmust (May 30, 2011)

davparlr said:


> I see. Looking at an outline drawing, their appears to be no room for growth forward of the cockpit. The F2G-1 does not add any length to the F4U and the cockpit does not look to have been moved aft. The only way I can see for them to put the longer engine is is either to reduce the size of the fuel tank or to reduce the size of the compressor. Maybe a reduced compressor is the reason for such low performance at higher altitudes. The XP-72 with its aft turbocharger, had plenty of room to increase its size. In addition, a larger and heavier turbocharger located aft of the wings would mitigate the heavier R-4360 engine.


 
The XP-72 did not use a turbocharger. It had a supercharger. - Bodie in "Republic's P-47 Thunderbolt" page 404


----------



## P-40K-5 (May 30, 2011)

pbfoot said:


> Yes the 109 had its way until the 51 arrived , *it could pick and choose when to fight * it had the advantage of ground control and fighting over its home territory the USAAF fighters negated this ability. please do not think that I am saying the US was better as it was far from that . When the 51 arrived in 43 the LW was waning and the 51 was able to complete the task that was started by Russians and Commonwealth


 
again you don't seem to get it. but whatev... sorry for straying from the O/Ps original question.


----------



## jim (May 30, 2011)

Lighthunmust said:


> During forty years of experience with firearms both in and out of the military, you are the first person I have ever encountered that described John Browning’s .50 caliber with the word “weak”.
> Expense, redundancy, ease of maintenance, rapid fire, ammunition capacity, and most importantly sufficient power are qualities to be balanced against raw power.
> 
> From “Flying Guns, World War II” page 98 referring to the BoB
> ...


 
Let me try remind you some cases of 50 claimed weak
1)Korea .According to american pilots ineffective against Mig 15 , Il10. Many sources e.g Korean war aces,Osprey
2) American Navyrecognized F8F firepower (6x0,50)inadequate and ordered the development of F8f1b armed with cannons. Source F8F in action ,page 22. F4u also went for the 20 mm later.
3) RAF in all its latest figther rejected it in favor of 20mm cannons( Spitfire 21, Spiteful, Sea Fury,Tempest, )
4)Soviets never liked it, rarely used it 
5) You claim that it was sufficient for destruction of targets like B17,B29,IL2,B24? Okay, some even claim that it could destroy Tiger tanks
6) There are free sites about guns that provide the maths that proves that the 0,50 was not the best air gun .Mg ff actually was pretty good and certainly better than 0,50 . Galland field modified one of his Bf109F to carry the weapon
7) The very late 190s (A8/9, F8/9, Ta152)had armor that could resist a reasonable number of 12,7mm hits (up to 15-20mm armor,source Dietmar Harmann books)
7sec is not ideal but decent for a proper trained pilot. I never have readen that luftwaffe s problem in Battle of Britain was the armament. The only think that Bf 109E needed to have mustung succes was the Drop tanks , rate of production and proper battle tactics.


----------



## davparlr (May 30, 2011)

Lighthunmust said:


> The XP-72 did not use a turbocharger. It had a supercharger. - Bodie in "Republic's P-47 Thunderbolt" page 404


 
WOW, you're right. What a surprisingly poor assumption. Still the supercharger was mounted behind the pilot, which helps Cg.


----------



## pbfoot (May 30, 2011)

P-40K-5 said:


> again you don't seem to get it. but whatev... sorry for straying from the O/Ps original question.


I get it totally and rely on first hand info , Stats are reasonable guideline for aircraft performance but I wouldn't bet the farm on them .


----------



## Lighthunmust (May 30, 2011)

jim said:


> Let me try remind you some cases of 50 claimed weak
> 1)Korea .According to american pilots ineffective against Mig 15 , Il10. Many sources e.g Korean war aces,Osprey
> 2) American Navyrecognized F8F firepower (6x0,50)inadequate and ordered the development of F8f1b armed with cannons. Source F8F in action ,page 22. F4u also went for the 20 mm later.
> 3) RAF in all its latest figther rejected it in favor of 20mm cannons( Spitfire 21, Spiteful, Sea Fury,Tempest, )
> ...


 

Wow! That was an amazing display of things I am well aware of! The word "weak" was a poor choice to describe a belief in ineffectiveness. Within the scope of the discussion started in this thread and continued in the new thread; the sufficiency of the .50 cal as a good balance of power and firing time for destroying bombers by killing pilots instead of attempting destruction by catastrophic damage of critical structural elements is my argument. If you have never read anything about the controversy of guns used in the BoB, you have not done enough reading. I have three books about the BoB, and numerous others that mention this controversy. Just because a Military rejects one weapon for another weapon does not necessarily mean it was the correct decision. This is not a rare event. If you want to continue this discussion, please move it to the other thread. Thank you.


----------



## renrich (May 31, 2011)

The F8F did not, at first, have six fifities. In fact it never had six guns. At first it had four fifties, just like the FMs had. Later it switched to four 20mms. To say the 50 BMG was or is weak seems a little bit of an overstatement. It is still being used and is very effective against light armored vehicles. The F86 in Korea may have been better off with four 20mms but it did get the job done with the six fifties against the Mig 15. From what I have read the Lancaster would have been armed with fifties instead of the rifle caliber weapons if the fifties had been available.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## P-40K-5 (May 31, 2011)

pbfoot said:


> I get it totally and rely on first hand info , Stats are reasonable guideline for aircraft performance but I wouldn't bet the farm on them .


 
well then maybe you can explain exactly how the P-51 put the "smackdown" on the Bf109?
BTW.. D.Brown(?), an American Test Pilot concluded the a Bf109G could reach Mach .83 in
a dive, the P-51D Mach .80, the P-47 Mach .73. he also concludes that a Mach .74 Dive
in a P-47 would = a "graveyard dive". so it seems to me, that the 109 could pick and choose
when to fight, and when to get the hell outta dodge. as most P-51 pilots would not continue
in a dive with a Bf 109. despite what you see on History Channels "Dogfights".

cheers.

PS.. the Bf109K was pretty much equal in speed to the Mustang, and as we
all know, nothing could outclimb the 'K' (props driven WWII era).


----------



## Lighthunmust (May 31, 2011)

P-40K-5 said:


> well then maybe you can explain exactly how the P-51 put the "smackdown" on the Bf109?
> BTW.. D.Brown(?), an American Test Pilot concluded the a Bf109G could reach Mach .83 in
> a dive, the P-51D Mach .80, the P-47 Mach .73. he also concludes that a Mach .74 Dive
> in a P-47 would = a "graveyard dive". so it seems to me, that the 109 could pick and choose
> ...


 

I started this thread. So please move your P-51 versus Bf109 "smackdown" discussion elsewhere. It is not beneficial to the topic of discussion.


----------



## Lighthunmust (Jun 3, 2011)

I want to thank all the members who posted to this thread. A great amount of useful information was contributed. My feeling is that original the parameters used to construct this thread have reached a point of diminishing returns. A new, better conceived thread using much of the information from this one would do the topic of criteria for choosing the best piston fighter more justice.

One of the most significant things presented in this thread is the validity of sources for flight performance and physical characteristics of the fighters. A way of reaching some compromise for these variable needs to be found. I will work on that before starting a new thread.

I believe that in a new thread we will discover that the raw performance figures (speeds, climb rates, horizontal and diving acceleration, primary weapon power, etc.) of the top competitors will tend to balance against each other. In the current thread other factors have not been adequately analyzed. These factors may provide the slim margin of superiority that determines the best piston fighter.

I want to again thank all the members who posted. A special thank you to Shortround6 who made the best effort in analyzing details of criteria and applying them to determine the best choice of aircraft.

I have requested that this thread be closed a Moderator.


----------

