# New thread F7F Tigercat vs P38 Lightning vs deHaviland Hornet vs P82 Twin Mustang



## pinsog (Aug 26, 2011)

Compare all 4 aircraft in a dogfight.

Climb, dive, acceleration, manueverablity and firepower and any other overall performance characteristics.

FYI Make it the last model Lightning produced.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 27, 2011)

P-38 is toast, but then it is a much older design with much lower powered engines. about 20% less power than the others. Roughly tied for worst fire power with the P-82.


----------



## davparlr (Aug 27, 2011)

P-38 is poorest performer but is also the oldest design

F7F is rather slow (435mph) but has the best climb (4500 ft/min, 500 ft/min better than the next best) and best armament (4x20mm, 4x.50)

Hornet has best power to weight, wing loading (tied with F7F), top speed (472mph), and range (3000), but worst in ceiling, (35k).

P-82, depending on engine has good speed (460-470), comparable climb (4000 ft/min), ceiling (40k). and is second best in range (2504)

Dive performance is probably unobtainable.

My ranking, best being first

*Hornet* (Poor ceiling is an issue)

*P-82* (a note here is that the P-82 has the lowest power but is roughly tied with top speed, and is tied in climb with the P-38 and Hornet)

*F7F* (ranked here only because it is 25 to 35 mph slower than the P-82.)

*P-38*


----------



## davebender (Aug 27, 2011)

I agree. The F7F and deHaviland Hornet should be superior to an aircraft designed several years earlier. And they were.


----------



## Readie (Aug 27, 2011)

Had the P38 been fitted with the superb Merlin, things may have been different.
But, even with proper engines, the P38 would struggle against newer designs.
Cheers
John


----------



## Milosh (Aug 27, 2011)

Readie said:


> Had the P38 been fitted with the superb Merlin, things may have been different.
> But, even with proper engines, the P38 would struggle against newer designs.
> Cheers
> John



Merlins didn't make any real difference to the performance of the P-38, at least according to some study done by Lockheed.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 27, 2011)

Much as you like the Merlin this is one case where the Merlin will not help. late model Allisons in P-38s were good for 1600hp at over 27,000ft and good for 1425 hp at 29,000ft in level flight. 

Allisons got better fuel consumption at cruising speeds and with proper flying technique turbo Allisons got anywhere from 8-30% more "milage" than a Merlin. Trading a minor improvement in performance at certain altitudes for lower performance at others and less range to boot doesn't improve the P-38 much.


----------



## krieghund (Aug 28, 2011)

Would you like to add the Ki-83 to that list?


----------



## drgondog (Aug 28, 2011)

To Shortround's point - I got engaged in the P-38 debate on the warbirdsforum awhile ago and did some calculations. Without reproducing here, one of the top speed issues with the 38 was high drag when compared to P-51. The 38 had about 50% more CDo and was entering the 5% increase range at .63-.68 M. What that means is that even with the best Hp improvement the Merlins could give over the late war Allisons the P-38 could not increase top speed much over 425-430mph at critical altitude.

One of the primary reasons that the P-38 could not beat the P-51 in the Bendix Races post WWII.


----------



## pinsog (Aug 28, 2011)

Would anyone like to guess who would win a turn fight between these 4 planes?

And yes I know they are all energy fighters....


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 28, 2011)

Milosh said:


> Merlins didn't make any real difference to the performance of the P-38, at least according to some study done by Lockheed.



The only real improvements with the Merlin was in production where it didn't have the complicated turbocharger eqmt. to be fitted. Simplified assembly and maintenance (and reliability over the ETO).

What would have been a game changer for the P38 was having a four bladed prop attached. Time to climb specs would have been phenomenal, even considering the three bladed prop as was used, was already excellent.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 28, 2011)

The F7F looks to have the best wing loading at worst case (Max Gross) = 55/sq ft, Hornet next at 58 and P-82 at 61/sq ft.

The P-82 figures are for the P-82 G the heaviest. The prototype P-82 was 2,000 pounds less and had 30% more hp with the Packard Merlin engines - all production versions after the first block had Allisons to keep it 'all american'..


----------



## davebender (Aug 28, 2011)

18 November 1944. 
Ki-83 first flight. 4 prototypes.

October 1943.
Do-335 first flight. 37 prototypes.

If we are going to open this discussion to the Ki-83 twin engine fighter then the Do-335 must also qualify. It flew a year earlier and a lot more prototypes were produced.


----------



## Readie (Aug 28, 2011)

How about a five bladed Griffon then in a Lighting?
Surely more power is the always the answer....

I take your points about mpg and we have done the Merlin v Allison to death.

Cheers
John


----------



## Jabberwocky (Aug 28, 2011)

davparlr said:


> P-38 is poorest performer but is also the oldest design
> 
> F7F is rather slow (435mph) but has the best climb (4500 ft/min, 500 ft/min better than the next best) and best armament (4x20mm, 4x.50)
> 
> Hornet has best power to weight, wing loading (tied with F7F), top speed (472mph), and range (3000), but worst in ceiling, (35k).


 
Small correction:

The Hornet's RoC at sea level was anywhere from 4500-5400 ft/min, depending on the level of engine boost. The engines were cleared for +20 lbs and around 2070 hp with 100 octane, but typically run at + 18 lbs boost, giving 1960 hp. With 150 octane, the engine could be run at +25 lbs boost, giving about 2320 hp.


----------



## krieghund (Aug 28, 2011)

davebender said:


> 18 November 1944.
> Ki-83 first flight. 4 prototypes.
> 
> October 1943.
> ...




Oh yes forgot about that one, good choice


----------



## jim (Aug 29, 2011)

I find the Hornet the most beautiful piston engined fighter ( Germans included!) . Performance wise was the best of the four and i think that Eric Brown wrote that it had the best handling of any other piston engine fighter that he ever flew. Its only possible compentitor would be MW50 equiped Do335 or a DB 605DC equiped FW187. Ki 83 looks beautiful too and has more power but also more drug because of the radials. It left good impressions in America post war. However F7F is much more realistic approach for a conflict like Korea.


----------



## davebender (Aug 29, 2011)

I'm not confident the relatively small Fw-187 airframe could handle 4,000 total hp. But the power to weight ratio would be awesome for a piston engine aircraft!


----------



## Readie (Aug 29, 2011)

davebender said:


> I'm not confident the relatively small Fw-187 airframe could handle 4,000 total hp. But the power to weight ratio would be awesome for a piston engine aircraft!



Maybe Dave, guess we'll never know as it was rejected. The Germans never really got to grip with a true twin engined fighter.
Maybe they didn't see the need?
Cheers
John


----------



## davebender (Aug 29, 2011)

I think the Luftwaffe realized the value of both the Fw-187 and He-100. But DB601 engine production didn't catch up with demand until about 1942. Not much point in producing fighter airframes without engines to power them. 

If the DB601 had been produced on the same scale as the Jumo211 engine early on the situation would be entirely changed. It's possible the Fw-190 might even have been powered by a DB601 / DB605 engine.


----------



## Readie (Aug 29, 2011)

davebender said:


> I think the Luftwaffe realized the value of both the Fw-187 and He-100. But DB601 engine production didn't catch up with demand until about 1942. Not much point in producing fighter airframes without engines to power them.
> 
> If the DB601 had been produced on the same scale as the Jumo211 engine early on the situation would be entirely changed. It's possible the Fw-190 might even have been powered by a DB601 / DB605 engine.



My sources indicate that both were rejected by the LW. I would agree that they were typically German cutting edge machines and deserved better.
I'm not sure that the engine production was an influencing factor in the LW's decision.
Bear in mind that the LW was the blitzkreig arm of the German forces. Hence my comment about no need for these planes. Maybe as WW2 progressed the bosses in the LW rued their earlier decision.
Who knows?
cheers
John


----------



## davebender (Aug 29, 2011)

What else could the Luftwaffe do if there were no engines to power the He-100 and Fw-187?


----------



## Readie (Aug 30, 2011)

davebender said:


> What else could the Luftwaffe do if there were no engines to power the He-100 and Fw-187?



Build more? 
Even someone as short sighted as Goering must have been able to see the advantages these aircraft held.
I think I'm right in saying that there is a connection between the He100 and the Spitfire.


----------



## Milosh (Aug 30, 2011)

davebender said:


> I'm not confident the relatively small Fw-187 airframe could handle 4,000 total hp. But the power to weight ratio would be awesome for a piston engine aircraft!



Why not as the small 109 used a 2000hp engine?


----------



## davebender (Aug 30, 2011)

U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey Aircraft Division Industry Report
I agree but that's not what happened historically. RLM didn't decide to expand DB601 engine production at Genshagen (primary DB601 plant) until 1940. It takes about two years for a major factory expansion to produce results. By 1942 RLM had decided the Fw-190 with BMW801 radial engine was a better bet then the DB601 powered He-100 and Fw-187.


----------



## Readie (Aug 30, 2011)

davebender said:


> U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey Aircraft Division Industry Report
> I agree but that's not what happened historically. RLM didn't decide to expand DB601 engine production at Genshagen (primary DB601 plant) until 1940. It takes about two years for a major factory expansion to produce results. By 1942 RLM had decided the Fw-190 with BMW801 radial engine was a better bet then the DB601 powered He-100 and Fw-187.



Interesting Dave, thanks for the information. The Germans missed a trick it seems.
Cheers
John


----------



## spicmart (Apr 6, 2012)

davebender said:


> I'm not confident the relatively small Fw-187 airframe could handle 4,000 total hp. But the power to weight ratio would be awesome for a piston engine aircraft!



Mr. davebender, why should it not? Its airframe is as small as the Hornet's which has two 2000+ engines.


----------



## woljags (Apr 6, 2012)

Luftwaffe Resource Center - A Warbirds Resource Group Site - Focke Wulf Fw 187

found this on the internet if anyone wants some info on the fw187


----------



## drgondog (Apr 6, 2012)

A couple of points about the P-82. It had a couple of long distance records including Hawaii to New York - 14 hours/33 minutes in 1946 - 5051 miles. I believe it wins on range.

The P-82B/E could install a droppable mount of 8x50, (400rpg) to add to the 6x50, 400 rpg. 14x50 cal is right up there in Interceptor role

Although the initial production run was 1650-9 and -11 for counter rotating props, the subsequent models all had Allisons

IIRC it had one air to air skirmish with five La 7, Yak 9 and Yak 11' s shooting down one Yak 11 and two La 7s in air combat with no losses so the airplane could manuever pretty well - and had awesome firepower in CAS until Air Defense Command yanked them from FEAF.

In the escort role it could go to Moscow from London, loiter for 30 minutes, fly at 40K to stay with B-36, and return.

It was an interesting derivative of the XP-51J and the 51H used (most) design features/designs of the XP-82.

I suspect the Hornet and The F7F could outturn the P-82 - and probably the P-38J - but I wonder what the centerbody wing/counter rotation props and very clean aerodynamics would mean to reduce high AoA profile drag in high G.


----------

