# Best Fighter III



## kiwimac (Jan 20, 2005)

We can argue all we like but German Aircraft design was ahead of that of the allies in 1939 and was still ahead in 1945. That the Germans did not have the raw materials in 1945 to build them is beside the point.

As far as the Airbus is concerned... hmmm, RG had perhaps better rethink his comment. It is not subsidisation that destroys competitiveness, it is rather the concept that public good can only come from private industry.

Kiwimac


----------



## Erich (Jan 20, 2005)

Was ist die Geschwindigkeit der Schwärzung =S=  


Didn't I just say in an earlier post that the combats with Dora's was infrequent ? yes it happened but not as many incidents truthfully as reported by US P-51 pilots. Prime sources are the losses of II./JG 301 for one...........

I'll make a listing of units that flew the bird after work on the day or morrow or.... 

Aber bitte mit Sahne !

v/r

E ♪


----------



## Erich (Jan 20, 2005)

ok here we go.

JG 2
JG 26

Dora's in full.

Stab and one staffel of IV./JG 3, Ost front
Stab./JG 4, Ost front

Parts of JG 6 although equipped mostly with the A-8 and A-9.

4-5 Doras in protective staffel of JV 44

3 staffeln of II./JG 301 which did have contact with US fighter units.

that is it gents..........

E ~


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 20, 2005)

Yeah RG_Lunatic with what you just said proves to me how ignorant and assinine you are. I think you are part of some US Hate group, but you know what I will not lower myself to your level of ignorance by saying that I hope Boeing goes under because Airbus has sold more aircraft than Boeing for the last 3 years. And hey RG thats on paper so you better believe it. LOL Anyways I am not going to subject myself to his ignorancy anymore.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 20, 2005)

Kiwi, why not sticky this thread and move the other 2 Best Fighter topics to the archive thread?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 20, 2005)

what do you mean by sticky?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 20, 2005)

It always stays at the top of the forum - look at the first 6 threads here, they are all sticky.

The idea for the forums was that once a thread reached 20 pages it would be moved to the Archive forum and a new one would be started in the same place...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 20, 2005)

Ah I see. I think he stopped it because of the way the convo is going.


----------



## Erich (Jan 20, 2005)

ok what's going on here guys ?

I have a bit of info to add but want to make sure that we all can give our honest opinions on Dora vs P-51 combats, etc................

rename the thread maybe ? not a bad idea  but it's the moderating teams call of course.

II./JG 301 received the Dora sometime in frame of 4 December 1944. trials and high cover missions they lost their first Dora's on 31 December 1944. 7th staffel with red numbers had an overabundance of Dora a/c and supplied these to 5th and 8th staffel pilots although 8th staffel enver received the unit during the latter part of the war, only 5-7th staffeln. Four Dora's were lost on the 31st December datein aerial combat with P-51's. 
In January of 45 II./JG 301 moved to Welzow with the Geschwader Stab. II. gruppe continued to fly Höhenjäger missions agasint high flying P-51's.
On the 14th of January II. gruppe lost 5 Doras in combat with P-51's. 
On the 20th of January JG 301 as a whole is now called to perfom on two fronts, west and Ost, flying protective and fighter bomber missions against the Soviets.
8th of February 1 Dora lost.
9th of February 1 Dora lost
14th of February 2 Doras lost

2nd of March 1945 a huge air battle against US bombers and P-51's, all four gruppen of JG 301 involved. Back later

wanted to back up a bit. In the fall of 1944 the first gruppe equipped with the Dora 9 was III./JG 54 which was given the position of protecting W. Nowotny's Me 262 unit. After the disaster of Nowotny and his unit and also of III./Jg 54 terrible protection of the jets the III. gruppe was absorbed by JG 26.

Erich ~ hope this is all of interest ..........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 20, 2005)

Do you know about any actions between the Dora and the Spitfire?


----------



## Erich (Jan 20, 2005)

2nd of March, 7 Doras are lost in action with 352nd fg P-51's. IV. gruppe with Bf 109G-10's ceased to exist and JG 301 took a terrible pounding, so much so that the overall diary almost dissolves

In April of 45 there maybe 5 losses although individual dates are not confirmed............there is total de-moralization of the unit and it is on constant move from field to field...........ground personell and even pilots are hunting for gas the unit trying to stave off attacks from the east by the Soviets. JG 301 is performing dive bomber attacks along with JG 300 on Soviet held positions / crossroads and bridges.


----------



## Erich (Jan 20, 2005)

I believe that almost all actions of JG 26 were against the RAF. JG 2 haven't a clue. JG 6 met up with P-51's on several missions. the more I am delving into actions the more I am proving myself wrong, ah what the heck, it is interesting ............ 8)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 20, 2005)

Yes it is I am going to try and find some info on RAF encounters with the Dora, if there are any.


----------



## Erich (Jan 20, 2005)

yep here is a profile that I posted up earlier. 7./JG 301 actually by Claes Sundin. 5th had white #'s, 6th had red #'s and 7th had yellow #'s. 8th staffel had blue #'s but received the A-8 and A-9's and no Dora's.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 20, 2005)

> Tank made it plain that he regarded the Jumo-powered FW-190D-9 as an "interim solution", leading Luftwaffe pilots to believe that they were going to get an indifferent and clumsy lashup. Once they got their hands on the machine, they found out that the "Dora-Nine", as they called it, was a superb aircraft. It was faster, climbed more rapidly, and handled better than an Anton, and almost certainly the best piston fighter to be fielded in numbers by the Luftwaffe. The Dora-Nine proved to be a nasty handful for American P-51Ds and late-mark RAF Spitfires. Tank was just being fussy.
> 
> The Dora-Nine was produced in good numbers, but unfortunately for the Luftwaffe, conditions were becoming increasingly difficult at this late date, with fuel and pilots running desperately short. Many of the FW-190D-9s built never saw combat, and in any case they were too few to have any influence on the course of the war. Those that did see action were often used as "top cover" for airfields operating the Messerschmitt Me-262 jet fighter, whose poor acceleration made it highly vulnerable during landings.
> http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avfw190.html


----------



## kiwimac (Jan 20, 2005)

DerAdler is right.

I will sticky this if when folk improve the quality of the conversation. A GOOD start has been made here lets keep it up.

[Admin hat off]

Kiwimac


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 20, 2005)

to be honest i don't really believe some of the german "X" planes were capable of what the germans said they were, don't get me wrong i know allot of their designs were good but they had bombers they said could hit 600mph and many of them wouldn't have worked, take the Go-229, good stats but post war was proved to be to unstable to be any use.........


----------



## Erich (Jan 20, 2005)

just so it is understood by all...........

in Adlers copy and paste on the Dora, only III./JG 54 provided top cover in the fall months of 1944 for Me 262 jet equipped Kommando Nowotny. they did a terrible job of doing so as the jets got hit on take off ( 361st fg, Urband Drew) and on landing plus Walter Nowotny himself was shot down in action.

E ~


----------



## Udet (Jan 20, 2005)

Erich, hi:

What about the victories of the Doras?


----------



## Erich (Jan 20, 2005)

uh I think I knew that was coming Udet............going to be hard as I do not have them for JG 2 and only for IV./JG 26 which is going to be tough hunting through their diary. the JG 301 logook for claims is not at all complete it is more of a losses book along with sepcial emphasis on one particular pilot, Willi Reschke. Stab/JG 4's is possible and so is IV.Stab/JG 3 

give me some time next week and I'll see what I can do. Another problem is JG 301 is listed by pilot but not necessarily by the gruppe/staffel, sometimes yes and sometimes no

just punched up: JG 4, and they shot down 3 Soviet a/c

IV.Stab/JG 3 shot down 6 Soviet a/c by Oskar Romm. there should be another 3-4 by other pilots but do not see them listed in the diary.

bis bald

Erich ~


----------



## Erich (Jan 20, 2005)

well this is weird though not surprising for JG 301. The book only lists 1 kill by Dora's which is incorrect.

Lt. Rudi Wurff who singlehandedly attacked Pierre Clostermanns squadron of Tempests. Rudi shot down Pierre's wingman and nearly took out Pierre. a perfect bounce by the 6./JG 301 pilot totally surprising the Allied crews. Funny too as Pierre credited the Dora pilot with 3-4 kills in his book, but Rudi was only given 1 confirmed. Date 21 April 1945 über Dammer See. Rudi Wurff made it through the war with 3 kills, but probably more..........  

Erich ♪


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 21, 2005)

I have not been able to find too much info on Dora kills but it might be hard do to the fact that late 1944 and beyond they were no longer keeping track of the kills or atleast like they used to.


----------



## Udet (Jan 21, 2005)

Guys:

I digress: it is not my intention to debate further on fighter specifications.

I have been told by men who flew during WWII, the Bf109 G-10 could fly circles around the P-51 virtually at any altitude. The P-51 of course made a great opponent but was not unbeatable, AT ALL, according to the words of some of them.

The late dogfighting (repeat, dogfighting) versions of the Bf109 had everything to outfly any enemy fighter. 

It is amazing but it appears like the allied propaganda devoted to defame the Bf109 has paid its dividends. The firmly established notion of the "absolute inability and obsolence" of the Bf109 against the late allied fighter models. 

Illiterate hogwash gentlemen.

Yes, the model suffered throughout its evolution, and a lot of Blah, blah, blah...but so did the Spitfire. And both planes were among the very best during the whole conflict.

I am quite confident affirming this. I have talked to some men who were there and have had the chance of seeing guncamera footage showing the P-51s taking lead from German fighters and going down.

That Erich or any other brilliant researcher such as him, have not found any confirmed registered victory of Doras over P-51s in dogfights does not imply at all it did not actually happen! (This is not directed to you Erich)

It is pointless to continue arguing the P-51 was the best, greatest and only perfect fighter of the war, because it was not.

One of the greatest? Yes; sharing the place along with the Bf109, Fw190s and the glorious Spitfire though.

Only experts and noted researchers such as Erich know that even if the Luftwaffe suffered frightful losses fighting both the RAF and USAAF, the victory achieved by the allies was everything but the pop corn chumping run depicted by the allied propaganda.

The mob does not know this. They are convinced the USAAF arrived to Europe to immediately, promptly and utterly erase the Luftwaffe of the skies of Europe, with ease. Have you seen the movies of the USA made by the hollywood boys of the 50s? Real caricatures, but to the mob that is about it!

Illiterate hogwash gentlemen.

Sum the total number of pilots and airmen killed in action of both the RAF and the USAAF and the number will show how frightening their losses were as well.

By the way, and off topic, my completely favorite fighters of the war are the Spitfire on its many versions, all Bf109s and Fw190s.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 22, 2005)

I will agree with you that it was not a run in the park for the allies but one reason why the allied airmen killed was so high is because many of the aircraft shot down were bombers. If you shoot down 10 fighters you kill 10 of them (not to say that they all die, but just for this purpose we will say so), if you shoot down 10 B-17 you kill 100, that is why there so many killed airmen for the allies.


----------



## Udet (Jan 22, 2005)

Der Adler:

You are virtually quoting me there, just in kind of a different approach. )

I said what you just posted on another thread around here; it was about the very high cost paid by the USAAF to get the job done by putting on one sole aircraft ten men.


The allied propaganda has tried to depict the fight against the Luftwaffe was similar -if not identical- against the fight with the Japanese Air Force in the Pacific. There lies my point.

The outcome was the same in both places: VICTORY.

But the path followed to get there was not similar; quite the opposite, the allied air run over Europe was a real tragedy for the USAAF.

1944 surely was the year when the Luftwaffe lost the battle, still it was the year when the Sturmgruppen obliterated heavy bomber formations. 

See my point? It was not as utter and easy as their propaganda accounts. Victory, of course! But not in the style achiieved against Japan.

Der Adler, what you posted here is correct, but it is only part of the whole deal.

Many many times the German fighters were ordered to get the bombers and to forget the escort fighters. 

"Get the bombers: they are killing lots of innocent civilians; each bomber you destroy saves lives and erases the 10 bastards on it." 

For example, in the allied propaganda campaign to defame the Bf109, it is always depicted that as the Bf109 evolved, the manouverability of the machine was affected, especially the G version. To some extent it is true, but never to render the fighter "nearly obsolete" and the like.

The Spitfire, from the MkI to the XIV version suffered a nearly identical process of evolution: more and more powerful engines being fitted, different armament configurations, fuselage modifications, etc....do they ever mention the model suffered accordingly throughout its evolution? Very hardly. And it did.

Notwithstanding that, the Spitfire remained one of the very best fighters of the war.

If you ask me, I see the P-47 above the Mustang; it did lots of very hard work, taking high losses many times, but it helped more than the P-51 did to the allied war effort.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 23, 2005)

kiwimac said:


> We can argue all we like but German Aircraft design was ahead of that of the allies in 1939 and was still ahead in 1945. That the Germans did not have the raw materials in 1945 to build them is beside the point.
> 
> Kiwimac



First off, I have never argued that German aircraft _"design"_ was not ahead of the Allies in WWII in many areas. What I have argued is that their materials and industrial technologies were insufficient to mass produce those designs. This is made all to clear by the inability of the Germans, despite 5 years of trying to do so, to build an operational turbo-supercharger even in small quantities. They simply did not have the tooling to do so.

And it wasn't just raw matrials that were lacked, it was also materials technologies. The German A-Bomb projected totally lacked the capacity to produce weapons grade uranium on even a small scale, let alone the quantities required for a bomb.

The Germans never made any alloy similar to IM11, which was composed of Alluminum, Magnesium, and Barium nitrate. They did try to use this combination by mixing the powdered forms and using wax to hold it together (which gave an unsatisfactory result). They understood the principal and value of such an alloy, but lacked the materials technology to produce it, because this required extremely precise temperature contol during the alloying and cooling process. Without such precise control, the metals would not alloy, and hot spots would form, and the whole thing would explode. I'm sure they could do it in small labratory quantities, but not on an industrial scale.

The German's were never able to mass produce their own ALNICO magnets. This dispite the fact that the fundimental knolwege was originally discovered by a Japanese scientist named Mishimo (or something close to that) in 1933. Again, they had the basic knowlege necessary, but lacked the materials technology to mass produce such an item, which required extremely precise control of the cool down temperatures. Without it, the Aluminum/nickle/Cobalt alloy would seperate making a worthless pile of crud. Without this the magnitron, cavity magnitron, and thus small wavelenth radar and the proximity fuse were out of reach.

It is one thing to be able to design a fancy end product, it is entierly another to be able to mass produce it. And that is not beside the point, that IS THE POINT!

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 23, 2005)

About the Airbus....

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=49046#49046

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 23, 2005)

I will deffinatly enjoy reading this!


----------



## Viper (Jan 29, 2005)

jet wise i think the germans were ahead but in piston aircraft i think the americans were with planes like the p-51h and the p-38 and the tigercat


----------



## Viper (Jan 29, 2005)

but look were it is now......


----------



## Erich (Jan 30, 2005)

again not having the Ta 152 run up against the P-51K we will never know


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 30, 2005)

That would be an interesting match.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 30, 2005)

I agree would have been interesting to see how that would have turned out.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Jan 30, 2005)

Erich said:


> again not having the Ta 152 run up against the P-51K we will never know



Erich, did you mean the P-51H, for the P-51K was the Dallas built version of the P-51D?


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 30, 2005)

Udet, I've seend several quotes from German pilots indicating the the maneuverability of the 109 was seriously degraded by the time of the G and later models. Not to say that it was obsolete by any means. But to claim that the 109 could fly rings around a P-51 may be stretching the truth a bit. This seems to be verified by the compartivie flight tests conducted as well.

I would agree with you that the P-47 contributed as much (if nor more) to the daylight bombing raids as the P-51. However, The P-51 was the better air-to-air fighter. Of course, I would choose a P-38L over either one of them.


----------



## Erich (Jan 30, 2005)

KK no what was available at hand. We have all thought the what if. posed the Ta 152 H against the P-51D or K in high altitiude combat..........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 30, 2005)

I think had the Ta-152 would have been a great match for a P-51D, K at high alltitudes. Even maybe would have a considerable advantage over the D.

I wonder what kind of impact it would have made had the Ta-152's been built in larger numbers and earlier then they had.


----------



## Erich (Jan 30, 2005)

would depend if the Luftwafe pilots had as much time to train on the Tank as the US fighter pilots on their P-51's. We would of then read of hihg altitude flights as high as 40,000 plus feet. who knows........ ?


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 30, 2005)

P-51's could not fight effectively above about 33-35K. The Ta's would have to have come down to fight.

The Ta could never have been produced in large numbers (like the P-51), it was a very difficult plane to manufacture.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 30, 2005)

that's true of most german engineering, very advanced and couldn't be produced in large numbers...........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 30, 2005)

I think the Germans built probably the best planes of the war, it was just resources that lost it for them.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 30, 2005)

yes their bomber's were truely amazing...........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 30, 2005)

I detect sarcasm there? 

Although not German, the P.108 was an amazing bomber...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 30, 2005)

no it wasn't, t'was a piece of shit................


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 30, 2005)

German engineering is well notoriously overengineered!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 30, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> no it wasn't, t'was a piece of s**t................



Thats naive to say that. It wasnt perfect (no plane was) but it was far better than you are leading yourself to think.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 30, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> that's true of most german engineering, very advanced and couldn't be produced in large numbers...........



The Zero is a very good example of a plane that was difficult to mass produce. It required a lot of hand craftsmenship. In the whole war, only about 11,000 were produced in the two largest aircraft factories in Japan.

The P-38 was also difficult to mass-produce. The P-51 on the otherhand, was relatively easy.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 30, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> the lancaster kicks ass said:
> 
> 
> > no it wasn't, t'was a piece of s**t................
> ...



well as of yet you've not said anything to make me believe it was a good aircraft..............


----------



## KraziKanuK (Jan 30, 2005)

The Lanc was a death trap for the crew compared to the Halli if you were shotdown.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 30, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> cheddar cheese said:
> 
> 
> > the lancaster kicks ass said:
> ...



He has a good point. What made it so good?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 30, 2005)

Well I dont have enough time for the full loon, but heres a brief description.

The Piaggio P.108 was Italy's only Heavy Bomber, and a marvellous one at that. First developed in 1939 the P.108 had technology similar to that of the B-29 although this was 5 years earlier. It had 8 12.7mm machine guns: 1 in the nose, 2 on the top, 2 waist position, 1 in the tail an 1 in each outer engine nacelle, which were remotely controlled. It had a respectable payload of 7,714lbs. It was powered by 4 Piaggio 1350hp engines and the plane proved to have good flight characteristics. The controls were a little difficult to understand however and this caused several crashes, one of which killed Benito Mussolinis son, Bruno. Flown by a crew of 6, the P.108 is most famous for its successful night bombing attacks on Gibraltar in 1942. The P.108 had 4 versions. The P.108 was a 1 off prototype with a 102mm cannon in place of the bomb bay for attacking shipping, and this was captured by the luftwaffe. The P.108B was the most numourous version, and was the Bomber Varient. The P.108C was the civilian version and then there was the P.108T, the military transport version, of which 12 were built, all captured by the Luftwaffe. In total, 163 P.108 were built.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 30, 2005)

The P-38 was difficult to mass-produce but that is because Lockheed was told to expect an order for NO MORE than 60 of the type! Then WWII happens and the US needs modern fighters NOW! All things considered, its impressive that a little over 10,000 were built (especially since a second sight wasn't openned until the very end of the war).


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 30, 2005)

Lightning Guy said:


> The P-38 was difficult to mass-produce but that is because Lockheed was told to expect an order for NO MORE than 60 of the type! Then WWII happens and the US needs modern fighters NOW! All things considered, its impressive that a little over 10,000 were built (especially since a second sight wasn't openned until the very end of the war).



I agree with you it was impressive!

However I don't think that being told only 60 would be ordered was any reason not to make the plane more easily manufactured. There are just certain features of a planes design that it is foolish to make difficult to produce, such as rounded wingtips instead of squared off tips. On the Ta152, production must have been a nightmare - the wings were twisted, which would have made sheetmetal work extremely difficult.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## KraziKanuK (Jan 30, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> On the Ta152, production must have been a nightmare - the wings were twisted, which would have made sheetmetal work extremely difficult.



Do you mean washout? 

Why would it be any more difficult than the 190 wing of which ~20,000 were built?

Most, if not, all a/c have some degree of washout.


----------



## Cougar (Jan 30, 2005)

The Lanc was a death trap for the crew compared to the Halli if you were shotdown.
i can see how thats true...


----------



## plan_D (Jan 31, 2005)

Krazi, 33,000 -109s were built. Admittedly, that does count the HA-112s of the Spanish Air Force. 

The Spitfire was another aircraft that was difficult to build, eliptical wings!


----------



## KraziKanuK (Jan 31, 2005)

plan_D said:


> Krazi, 33,000 -109s were built. Admittedly, that does count the HA-112s of the Spanish Air Force.
> !



Actually it was closer to 35-36,000 109s for war time production. The 33k number is for German construction. The Hungarians also built 109s.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 31, 2005)

Nope, my sources still say 33,000 including pre-war and post-war production by the Spanish Air Force. The HA-112 'Buchon' so on, and so forth.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 31, 2005)

The wings of the P-38 weren't the difficult part, the engine nacelles were. But again, it was being built to a set of specs that was considered virtually impossible. Lockheed had to make compromises (like every designer) to get the performance demanded.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 31, 2005)

KraziKanuK said:


> RG_Lunatic said:
> 
> 
> > On the Ta152, production must have been a nightmare - the wings were twisted, which would have made sheetmetal work extremely difficult.
> ...



On the TA, the inner part of the wing has signficantly more angle of attack than the outer part of the wing. It's a fairly smooth transition starting about 1/4 out from the wing root until the last few feet of the wingtip. The wing is "twisted", and this is a fairly unique design feature. The purpose was to maintain some effective airflow over the control surfaces through a stall, allowing some roll control in a fall through stall at the end of a climb. FW190A's, D's, and the TA152C did not have this wing design.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 31, 2005)

Lightning Guy said:


> The wings of the P-38 weren't the difficult part, the engine nacelles were. But again, it was being built to a set of specs that was considered virtually impossible. Lockheed had to make compromises (like every designer) to get the performance demanded.



Rouded wingtips, fins and stabalizers all make a plane much more difficult to construct than those involving relatively squared off designs. The nacelles/booms were also difficult to construct, and the curves of the fuselage were difficult as well. There is very little "flat" area to a P-38.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 31, 2005)

Cougar said:


> The Lanc was a death trap for the crew compared to the Halli if you were shotdown.
> i can see how thats true...



well the halibag wasn't exactily easy to get out of, you had the best chance in a stirling............


----------



## Yeomanz (Jan 31, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> yes their bomber's were truely amazing...........



they were , but you fail to realise that


----------



## KraziKanuK (Jan 31, 2005)

What is so hard about curved pieces? That is why there was stamping presses. Old Henry used them to make peices for his Model T.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 31, 2005)

KraziKanuK said:


> What is so hard about curved pieces? That is why there was stamping presses. Old Henry used them to make peices for his Model T.



Fitting peices with multiple curves for airplanes is a lot harder than for cars. For cars, you just splat some lead (or bondo) on the seams and sand it and it's good to go. On planes, the rivet holes have to line up, which means every peice has to fit just so - but lots of variables are involved and in reality they don't - the sheetmetal fitters have to know how to deal with this, sometimes by working the part, sometimes by heating or cooling it, whatever. Squared off parts and relatively flat, or at least single curved, portions of sheet metal made a plane much easier to build. The P-38 involved lots of parts that had two curves stamped into them.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## KraziKanuK (Feb 1, 2005)

That is what the various jigs are for after stamping. Engineers spent a lot of time to make sure there was not custom fitting.

One does not 'work' aluminium/dural if you want it to keep its quality.


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 1, 2005)

KraziKanuK said:


> That is what the various jigs are for after stamping. Engineers spent a lot of time to make sure there was not custom fitting.
> 
> One does not 'work' aluminium/dural if you want it to keep its quality.



And this is why it took a lot more work to put the plane together. A skilled worker had to use those jigs and use other techniques to fit the pieces together. The more complex the curves, the more difficult the job, especially when the plane was using a pre-stressed design.

And they did work the aluminum, they had special tools for warming it up to make it stretch a little easier w/o ripping. They used hammers, peens, etc...

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## KraziKanuK (Feb 3, 2005)

"in 1941 the Germans did do a comparison of the building times of the Spitfire I and the Bf 109E-1 as part of a comparison of 3 German and 3 British types of aircraft. The report was entitled "Vergleich deutscher und britischer Kriegsflugzeuge: Inhaltsübersicht" Berlin: 24.4.41. It used actual Bf 109 component creation and assembly times and compared them to the calculation of comparable times for a Spitfire, using German aviation production experts and then-current German aviation technology. Times were for the 1,000th aircraft in series production of the aircraft type. The total production and assembly times for the two aircraft, excluding engine and propeller, were as follows: Spitfire = 5,913 hours, and Bf 109 = 5,895 hours. The difference,1%."

So much for curvy panels.


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 3, 2005)

How were the Germans able to conduct such a study? It is very suspicous. The British certainly were not making such data available to the Germans!

Only the wing on the Spitfire would have been more difficult to manufacture than that of the 109. The rest of the plane is quite similar in complexity. Niether involve multiple complex curves.

Looking at actual production numbers and dates, it is apparent the Bf109 was probably easier to build than the Spitfire.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## KraziKanuK (Feb 3, 2005)

Easily since they had many Spitfires they could examine to see how they were constructed. German engineers were not dummies.


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 3, 2005)

KraziKanuK said:


> Easily since they had many Spitfires they could examine to see how they were constructed. German engineers were not dummies.



Which would tell them nothing about production quantities or production rates, only the technology employed.

Also, the Germans didn't have that many captured Spitfires to examine - the British didn't start venturing over German held territory until late 1942 (not counting night missions).

It is well known that the Spitfire wing was difficult to produce and this limited production rates. If the German "experts" estimated the same effort to produce a 109 as to produce a Spitfire, they estimated wrong. They had no experiance with such a wing to compare too.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## KraziKanuK (Feb 3, 2005)

The Spitfires were were flying over France and even Holland since 1940. 66 Sqd even losing a Spit over Rotterdam on the 13 May 1940. Around 72 Spits were lost in and around Dunkerque during Operation Dynamo. Rodoes, ramrods, etc were being flown in 1941 over German held France.

The Germans had experience with eliptical wings since the He 112 and Heinkel 111 had them.


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 3, 2005)

KraziKanuK said:


> The Spitfires were were flying over France and even Holland since 1940. 66 Sqd even losing a Spit over Rotterdam on the 13 May 1940. Around 72 Spits were lost in and around Dunkerque during Operation Dynamo. Rodoes, ramrods, etc were being flown in 1941 over German held France.
> 
> The Germans had experience with eliptical wings since the He 112 and Heinkel 111 had them.



Yes there were a few Spitfires in Europe in 1940. However, those lost in combat do not provide the kind of info gleened from a "captured" unit. I would imagine the Germans probably did manage to nab one, but I'm not sure of that.

The He111 did not have an elipitical wing. As for the He 112, it did... and read for yourself:



> Another issue is that *the 112 was more complex than the 109*, and it's likely that this had at least some effect on the decision making process. _*The 112's use of complex curves on almost all surfaces required more working of the metal, notably the large number of hard to build 2-d curves.* This is also true of the wing, as the elliptical planform was often skipped over due to it's complex construction, even though it is provably the most efficient wing design possible._ As a result *the 112 was considerably more expensive to build*, and this is a major concern for a plane that has to be quickly ordered into mass production.
> http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/he112.html



Even your own example disputes you.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 3, 2005)

i was gonna say the 111 didn't have eliptical wings, just very good looking ones........


----------



## evangilder (Feb 3, 2005)

The Germas actually flew quite a few Spitfires. There are at least seven that are known and several other possibles. There are pictures of many on different sites on the web. Look into Zirkus Rosarius and you will find several pictures of captured spits.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 4, 2005)

On the www.luftarchive.de website somewhere there is a picture of a Lufwaffe Spit with a DB engine...


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 4, 2005)

But how does that make any sense out of the claim that the 109 took about the same effort to construct as the Spitfire? Even their own experiance with elliptical wings in the HE112 found them much harder to manufacture (see my previous post in this thread).

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## NightHawk (Feb 5, 2005)

I finished my FW-190(low poly).


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 5, 2005)

wow pretty good, how long did it take??


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 5, 2005)

Thats well good NH...Just need to get some textures on it and that will look great! 8) Wish I could get the skill like that with my graphics program...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 5, 2005)

you got any examples of your work to show us??


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 5, 2005)

Nope... hehe I havent really bothered with it to be honest, I havent had the time


----------



## NightHawk (Feb 5, 2005)

Actualy i have textures but i dont konw how to do UAV mapping,
It took me about 1 week to make the low poly version, i belive il work another week on makeing the details,And as soon as il know how to do UAV mapping il make the textures.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Feb 5, 2005)

Nice. 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 5, 2005)

that second one's very unusual..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 5, 2005)

For 190 markings yes they are...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 5, 2005)

well no you just never see pics like that..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 5, 2005)

Yeah you do...every single skin on FB/AEP/PF has that structure...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 5, 2005)

yes but i don't know how to view them..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 5, 2005)

You have to go to the IL2 folder on your drive....then planes, then paint schemes or something like that.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 5, 2005)

cool, i'll look later..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 5, 2005)

You could try making your own one, of course


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 5, 2005)

but you know damn well what it's gonna look like.........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 7, 2005)

Wow I have missed a lot here. I have to agree that the eliptacle wing was harder to produce and even the Germans knew this.


----------



## hellmaker (Mar 20, 2005)

Such a topic is quite interesting...
In my oppinion one of the best fighters of ww2, if not the best, was the Messerschmidt Me-109/Bf-109. It could manouver better then it's allied counterparts both the Spitfire and the Mustang...It's only weak point was it's visibility...the cockpit was a bit crowded and the glass didn't permit a very good FOV...But once the pilot spotted the enemy it was all most certain who the victor would be... The Spitfire was one of the most elegant...if you would allow me the oppinion...I am a Spitfire fan...but it had a weak engine, and it was easelly surpassed by it's german counterpart... I may be wrong but if the Luftwaffe would have managed their resources more effectively the ww2 sky would not have been taken from them... Their air supremacy would have lasted till the end of the war...and probablly many more years from then on...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 20, 2005)

this's being discussed in the is the spitfire the best british fighter topic and it's been made pretty obvious that the spit was better than the -109........


----------



## hellmaker (Mar 20, 2005)

I am also proud to see that some people (cheddar cheese), have a clue about our(romanian) ww2 airforce, even though it was on the wrong side of the war for a good part of the war, due to poor political lidership, at the end, flying against the Luftwaffe, we did have some important Pilot Aces. And also against the Russian Airforce on the Eastern Front. I can't remmember their names right now, but I will look into the problem,  , and inform all of you. . I'm kidding, I'm shure you already know... I'm just a novice...what could I tell you that you don't already know???


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 20, 2005)

well i'm sure you've got allot to say and we'll be more than happy to hear more from you............

just don't bad mouth the lancaster..........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 20, 2005)

Ah, thankyou hellmaker and welcome! 8) (Youve started off in my good books..hehe) Ive always like the IAR aircraft. Know very little about them though. What were they like as fighters?


----------



## hellmaker (Mar 20, 2005)

No bad mouthing the lancaster... ... Actually I have greate respect for the english airforce...especially the bombers... They did the hardest job of keeping the natzi in their own bunkers...  Breaking their moral... They were the best example of Beauty and Functionality


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 20, 2005)

why thank you, you're making your way into my good books too...........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 20, 2005)

Functionality yes, beauty no. The closest the Brits got to a good looking plane was the Hurricane.


----------



## hellmaker (Mar 21, 2005)

Supermarine Spitfire Mk IX


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 21, 2005)

Hows about the Mosquito? Surely you think that looked good


----------



## hellmaker (Mar 21, 2005)

Well...the name is cool enough...  True to the game...


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 21, 2005)

The spit looked good aswell. The Beau just looked deadly


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 21, 2005)

the beau was beautifull........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 21, 2005)

*Smirk*

Nah, the Mossies looks are boring. 

The Albemerle looked pretty good.


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 21, 2005)

I'd forgot about that, it did look okay nad Mossies aren't boring, they've got beautiful lines


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 22, 2005)

the mossie was beatiful!!!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 22, 2005)

Well its kinda like cardboard. Not ugly but no features that make it pretty.


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 22, 2005)

Please, you have no taste in aeroplanes, just look at the ugly nose of the P.108 that you idolise


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 22, 2005)

I dont idolise its looks. The nose is a bit disastrous yes.

Im sorry but I think most British planes look either very dull or very ugly.


----------



## hellmaker (Mar 23, 2005)

Come on people... tastes are not to be disscused...  I myself am a fighter shape lover... ) I like bombers too, but not as much... I love the slim casing and the agility of a fighter. BOmbers are tough, durable, resistant... They have to be bigger, diffrent fuselage, diffrent looks... Everybody has his own tastes...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 23, 2005)

Yep, Radial engined fighters look the best 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 23, 2005)

radial engined fighters are ugly as hell.......


----------



## Concorde247 (Mar 26, 2005)

Please people!!! You can see by the sleek graceful lines of the mossie,
that she was built for speed. Especially the streamlined fuselage that tapers towards the back. she's a beautiful lady.

By the way, comparing radial fighters with inline/Vee engine jobs, Which is the better looking out of these two.

1. P51D Mustang or the P47D Thunderbolt???? 

IT HAS to be the mustang!!! THERE ARE VERY FEW good looking radials.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Mar 27, 2005)

Corsairs look _damn_ cool!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 27, 2005)

but spitfires look cooler...............


----------



## Nonskimmer (Mar 27, 2005)

Never seen a radial Spitfire.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 27, 2005)

no i'm comparing the corsair to an inline............


----------



## Nonskimmer (Mar 27, 2005)

The Spit looks cool in a sleek, dartlike kind of way.
The Corsair looks cool in a robust, powerful, "Get the hell outta my way, 'coz here I come!" kind of way. 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 27, 2005)

well that's the american way of doing things, the brits are far more refined and dignified...........


----------



## Nonskimmer (Mar 27, 2005)

Yeah right! 
As much as I love the Lancaster, I have to say it didn't exactly look refined or dignified.

Well, maybe the ones built in Canada. :-"


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 27, 2005)

hey, whilst the corsair might say "Get the hell outta my way, 'coz here I come!", the spit is more likely to say "move out of my way young man, you don't want to trifle with me".........


----------



## Nonskimmer (Mar 27, 2005)




----------



## KraziKanuK (Mar 27, 2005)

The Spit looks gay with all those soft lines, while American (and German) fighters ouse (sp??) masculinity.


----------



## Concorde247 (Mar 27, 2005)

Radial Spitfire - God forbid!


----------



## Nonskimmer (Mar 27, 2005)

Gay?! 
Slap yourself man!! You're delirious!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 27, 2005)

the lines of the spit are far from gay, they're about as sleek as you can get.........


----------



## Concorde247 (Mar 27, 2005)

KraziKanuK said:


> The Spit looks gay with all those soft lines, while American (and German) fighters ouse (sp??) masculinity.




Then why do the american fighters have Gay names like "Mustang" then!
 

The spitfire is class quality!!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 27, 2005)

con i take it you don't realise that the names of american fighters, we gave them those, mustang is in fact a british name........


----------



## Nonskimmer (Mar 27, 2005)

Yeah, way to go concorde!


----------



## Concorde247 (Mar 27, 2005)

whoops - I'd forgotten that!!!


----------



## Concorde247 (Mar 27, 2005)

Trying a siggie pic out that a mate e-mailed me - dont know where he got it from but i think it looks good!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 27, 2005)

hey nice, i belive that's from a website i know..........


----------



## Concorde247 (Mar 27, 2005)

Where?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 27, 2005)

http://www.historicwings.com/features98/lancaster/


----------



## Nonskimmer (Mar 27, 2005)

Cool.


----------



## Concorde247 (Mar 27, 2005)

Great site - I suppose that i'll have to change my siggie then


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 27, 2005)

hey it's ok i love your tiffy siggy...........


----------



## Concorde247 (Mar 27, 2005)

Its the last one, its in the RAF museum Hendon.


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 27, 2005)

Great one, I need to go to Hendon sometime soon!


----------



## BountyHunter15 (Mar 27, 2005)

What are you all taking about Concorde?


----------



## BountyHunter15 (Mar 27, 2005)

Did you see my picture of the Polikarov 1-16 I drew?


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 27, 2005)

Yep, it looked great, Concorde's sig is a pic of the last Hawker Typhoon and it's in the RAF Museum, Hendon, England


----------



## BountyHunter15 (Mar 27, 2005)

That's pretty cool. They fouhgt good in the Battle of Britain.


----------



## BountyHunter15 (Mar 27, 2005)

What's your favorite airplane?


----------



## BountyHunter15 (Mar 27, 2005)

My favorite is a P-51


----------



## Concorde247 (Mar 27, 2005)

BountyHunter15 said:


> What are you all taking about Concorde?




The RAF Museum at Hendon, it contains 3 museums in one, Fighter Command, Bomber command and a general RAF museum. thats where my typhoon siggie was taken. they also have a tempest MK V, and a Tempest II, Helicopters, Meteors, jet trainers, a harrier BAC Lightning, Phantom, Beaufort, Beaufighter Various types of Spitfires, A P47 in Australian markings - The list is so big.

The Fighter command part has: Gladiator, Defiant, Blenheim, hurricane Spitfire, He111 Bf 109 Bf110 Ju88 CR42 falco, Stuka, Lysander, Walrus and Sunderland. a great projestion show of the battle of britain etc.

facing the front of the Typhoon in my siggie, theres the Bomber command Museum: that Has Wellington, Halifax, Lancaster, Fairey battle, Be2c Vulcan Valliant V bombers, a buccaneer, B17, Airspeed oxford, B25, FW190 twin seat version, HE162 Salamander, All the types of bombes dropped by the RAF during the war, a Barnes wallis exhibit etc.

Its a grand day out, they also have the Graham White Building that contains all the WW1 Aircraft replicas. PLUS Admission is FREE! - I think I should be a tour Guide at this rate!!!


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 27, 2005)

Typhoon's didn't fight in the BoB, Huricanes did


----------



## Concorde247 (Mar 27, 2005)

The only reason that Typhoon was spared from being cut up for scrap was that it was sent to the states for evaluation. 

I know that three were sent to the middle east for desert trials, but I dont know what happened to them. they would have been great against Rommels tanks!!


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 27, 2005)

Goodbye Afrika Corps!


----------



## Concorde247 (Mar 27, 2005)




----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 27, 2005)

Thanks!


----------



## Concorde247 (Mar 28, 2005)

anytime!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 28, 2005)

althought the tiffy was too late for the desert war wasn't it.........


----------



## Concorde247 (Mar 28, 2005)

They only sent 3 out for evaluation, but they were needed in Europe, so they didnt get any more!






Caption reads " This Typhoon Ib was attached to No 451 sdn for desert Trials during 1943. Only 3 aircraft took part in the tests and were the only typhoons to see service with the desert Airforce


----------



## Nonskimmer (Mar 28, 2005)

Ah yes, I read that somewhere. I forget where now.


----------



## Concorde247 (Mar 28, 2005)

I got it from this book - do you have this one?


----------



## Nonskimmer (Mar 28, 2005)

Sadly, no. I only have books from that particular series on the Spitfire and Bf-109. They used to be common where I live, but now they seem to be hard to come by.


----------



## Concorde247 (Mar 28, 2005)

They arent exactly cheap either. - nearly a tenner for such a thin book, but the photos colour plates are worth it!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 28, 2005)

i've been looking for a while to try and find if there's a lancaster book in that series, they seem only to focus on fighters.......


----------



## KraziKanuK (Mar 28, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> i've been looking for a while to try and find if there's a lancaster book in that series, they seem only to focus on fighters.......









A link for the S/S books, http://www.squadron.com/


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 28, 2005)

thanks but the ling seems to be for an american model shop??


----------



## Concorde247 (Mar 28, 2005)

I've got the Lancaster one too!! but thats one i've had for ages...


----------



## KraziKanuK (Mar 28, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> thanks but the ling seems to be for an american model shop??



and it is the publishers of the InAction series.

http://www.squadron.com/SearchResul...ything&TypeList=everything&Submit=Go&offset=0

Yes Concord the Lanc book was published in 1982.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 28, 2005)

i'm looking into getting the osprey books on the lanc...........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 28, 2005)

I like the squadron ones. I have several of them.


----------



## Concorde247 (Mar 28, 2005)

The squadron ones are good!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 28, 2005)

I think they are small but informative.


----------



## Concorde247 (Mar 28, 2005)

I mostly have them for the pics line drawings.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 28, 2005)

Yeah they have great pics.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 5, 2005)

Ive got a great cut-away of the Komet, but its too big to scan in


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 5, 2005)

yeah allot of books have that cat away CC........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 5, 2005)

Who cares, its still great 8)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 6, 2005)

Ive got some great cut aways of 109's.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 6, 2005)

i've got some great technical drawings of the lanc.............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 6, 2005)

I wouldnt expect anything less.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 6, 2005)




----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 7, 2005)

If you need anthing on the Lanc just go to him.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 7, 2005)

yes i can tell you almost anything about the lanc given a bit of time............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 7, 2005)

Ive stumped him though. I asked him to come up with the surface area in acres of the lower part of the pilots seat (not including the underside) and hes failed!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 7, 2005)

i have not failed, i know the area in inches, however i haven't been arsed yet to convert it into acres like you asked.........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 7, 2005)

How are you gong to come up wiht acres on something so small?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 8, 2005)

well it's gonna be very small


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 8, 2005)

And when youve done that, find out 1/3rd the volume of the backrest in quarts, please


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 8, 2005)

ok the area of the pilot's seat in a Avro Lancaster Mk.I is 0.0000574 acres to 7 decimal places, and if you think i'm doing the back rest thing you can forget it


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 8, 2005)

Too hard for you is it? 

Anyway, I didnt specify the Mk. of Lancaster I wanted the measurement for, therefore I expect you to take an average of every Mk. of Lancaster built


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 8, 2005)

well it'll be the same area, it was the same for each mark..........

ok i'll do the backrest thing if you can find out how many dead, average sized cats it would take to fill the fusilage of a Piaggio P.108B............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 8, 2005)

3,487. Thats a common fact lanc, give me something a bit harder


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 10, 2005)

Where the hell do you guys come up with this stuff?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 10, 2005)

In the Gulag. Hey, theres nothing better to do


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 10, 2005)

really?? i thought that was the figure for the .108T??


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 10, 2005)

No, the P.108T has provision for 4,132 dead cats. 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 10, 2005)

sorry my mistake........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 10, 2005)

You all have me, I am lost.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 10, 2005)

We're all lost.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 10, 2005)

we're all just searching for somewhere to go, someone to love........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 10, 2005)

Well I cut down down trees, I skip and jump, i like to press wild flowers, I put on womens clothing and hang around in bars


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 10, 2005)

too true............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 10, 2005)

Yep, that was very well said, I couldnt agree more with the views expressed in that post.


----------



## mosquitoman (Apr 10, 2005)

But...
I cut down trees, I wear high heels suspendies and a bra
I wish I was a girlie, just like my dear papa...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 11, 2005)

Its I wish _*i'd been*_ a girlie 

That song applies to me so much


----------



## GT (Apr 11, 2005)

Update.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 11, 2005)

i think you're find there are plenty of people on here that will argue that.........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 11, 2005)

And I am one of them. Whilst it was a very capable fighter indeed, and right up there with the best, I think there are other aircraft that could outperform it.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 11, 2005)

actually there's proberly more people that would dissagree than would agree..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 11, 2005)

Although I think a fair amount of people would agree, I can certainly understand his choice.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 11, 2005)

Wearing Girl Clothes, that I can see CC.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 11, 2005)

You can see it now...look!


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 11, 2005)

Just when I had erased it from my brain.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 11, 2005)

an no, i am none of the people in that pic


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 11, 2005)

Im glad of that, it means I get more attention


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 11, 2005)

who's the owner of the arse on the right?? it's not one i reckognise.........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 11, 2005)

Beth Crabb...


Anyway maybe we should get back on topic  Us 2 getting broadband really isnt good for the site 

Best fighter Reggiane Re-2005...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 11, 2005)

nope..........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 11, 2005)

Look at the stats though...pretty darn good if you ask me.



> Engine One 1,475 hp Daimler-Benz DB 605A-1 V-12 inline liquid-cooled piston.
> Dimensions: Span: 36 ft 1 in / 11 m.
> Length: 28 ft 7 3/4 in / 8.73 m.
> Height: 10 ft 4 in / 3.15 m.
> ...



http://www.aldini.it/re2005/index.htm

Wow, a whole site about the plane...


----------



## mosquitoman (Apr 12, 2005)

The one advantage that the Mustang had over every other fighter was it's range, I've said it elswhere but... A Mustang can't do what a Spitfire does, but it does it over Berlin


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 12, 2005)

hey loving the new siggy mm...........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 12, 2005)

mosquitoman said:


> The one advantage that the Mustang had over every other fighter was it's range, I've said it elswhere but... A Mustang can't do what a Spitfire does, but it does it over Berlin



Not every other fighter...there is the P-38


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 12, 2005)

just had to say it didn't you...........


----------



## mosquitoman (Apr 12, 2005)

I was generalising


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 12, 2005)

Yeah I know. But like lanc said, I just had to say it


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 12, 2005)

Col. Mike Alba (Ret.) - My old neighbor. Flew both the 51 and 38 over Germany, Had 3 1/2 kills (in the Mustang) but liked the P-38 better except he said he froze his tushy off in the Lighting


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 12, 2005)

Yes, that was the problem, but only at the higher altitudes


----------



## evangilder (Apr 12, 2005)

But isn't that the point to be at high altitude?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 12, 2005)

He told me the 38 was more stable, liked the 2nd engine, but loved the concentrated firepower. He also said he had a hard time transitioning to the 51 because he felt it was a little unstable! Again, Mike said the 38 was the coldest airplne he ever flew!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 13, 2005)

yes that was quite a problem........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 13, 2005)

But still, if youre tough enough to withstand the cold then it should present too much of a problem.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 14, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> He told me the 38 was more stable, liked the 2nd engine, but loved the concentrated firepower. He also said he had a hard time transitioning to the 51 because he felt it was a little unstable!



RG is going to have fit when he reads this!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 14, 2005)




----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 14, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> FLYBOYJ said:
> 
> 
> > He told me the 38 was more stable, liked the 2nd engine, but loved the concentrated firepower. He also said he had a hard time transitioning to the 51 because he felt it was a little unstable!
> ...



THAT'S WHAT THE MAN SAID!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 15, 2005)

Oh I believe exactly what you are saying, but RG thinks that the P-51 is the greatest thing since bread and butter. Yes it was a great aircraft and one of the best ever built however it like all aircraft had faults also. Machines are not perfect.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 15, 2005)

nothing is, yet you seem to think the P-38 is??


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 15, 2005)

In Col. Alba's words "You had to be a good pilot to fly the P-38. If you were a good pilot and flew the P-51, you became a great pilot. If you were a fair pilot and flew the P-51, you became a good pilot"

Col. Alba told me he did have about 300 hours flying B-25s and A-20s before transferring to fly P-38s. Thats probably why he felt comfortable with the twin engine P-38


----------



## evangilder (Apr 15, 2005)

I spoke with a guy that flew P-38s late in the Pacific and their training in the P-38 was one of the planes had the radio and armor removed from behind the pilot's seat and the knelt behind the pilot who showed them how to work everything and where it was. After that, they were on their own. All of the guys in Bob's group had only flown single engines prior to that (P-39, P-40 mainly). He was surprised they never had any dual engine trainers first. He said the first 20 hours in the P-38 were pure adrenaline. He also said that if they had lost an engine on take-off early on, they would be doomed. But he did say once you got the feel for it, it was a great plane.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 15, 2005)

evangilder said:


> I spoke with a guy that flew P-38s late in the Pacific and their training in the P-38 was one of the planes had the radio and armor removed from behind the pilot's seat and the knelt behind the pilot who showed them how to work everything and where it was. After that, they were on their own. All of the guys in Bob's group had only flown single engines prior to that (P-39, P-40 mainly). He was surprised they never had any dual engine trainers first. He said the first 20 hours in the P-38 were pure adrenaline. He also said that if they had lost an engine on take-off early on, they would be doomed. But he did say once you got the feel for it, it was a great plane.



What you say is quite true even for light twin engine aircraft. A twin offers that safety factor, but if you don't remain proficient in engine out failure procedures (especially at take off) you will die very quickly.  If you go to the Federal Aviation Website (FAA) there are a number of twin Cessna crashes this year (400 series). Many of them are due to mis-managing an engine out during take off. Most of these aircraft's engines are about 300 h.p. Could you imagine how proficient you had to be managing 1,427 h.p. when loosing an engine, let alone in combat?!?


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 16, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Oh I believe exactly what you are saying, but RG thinks that the P-51 is the greatest thing since bread and butter. Yes it was a great aircraft and one of the best ever built however it like all aircraft had faults also. Machines are not perfect.



That is not true Alder. I just think the P-51 was competative with all its rivals in WWII. It had a few things it did very well, such as sustain high speeds for extended periods and tremendous range, and others it was not so good at, such as sustained hard turns and durability under fire.

The P-38 was a great plane, but it's not until you get into the late J series that it really came into its own. And it was flawed in its ability at high speeds because the wings were not properly designed for it - it should have had a little more wing area but thinner wings.

All-in-all, I think the F4U-4 and P-47M/N were the best American fighters.

The F4U-4 was probably the best pure fighter of the three perticularly under about 27,000 feet. But of course, it didn't see action in the ETO.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## trackend (Apr 16, 2005)

Just a thought the Zero had a good range when used for Kamikazi One way only so it required no fuel for the return trip.


FLYBOYJ said:


> Again, Mike said the 38 was the coldest airplne he ever flew!


I wonder how your freind Mike would have felt about doing the Murmansk convoy runs in an old Stringbag either way it's not my idea of warm. I'm glad it wasn't me freezing me gonads off in a P38 or anything else I would have thought a waist gunner on a Fort got a bit chilly too.
speaking of chilly P38's I found this (although you've probably seen it) http://www.stelzriede.com/ms/html/sub/mshwma20.htm


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 16, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> nothing is, yet you seem to think the P-38 is??



Actually I dont think the P-38 was the greatest plane ever. I just think it is better then some of the things you throw up against it.



RG_Lunatic said:


> That is not true Alder. I just think the P-51 was competative with all its rivals in WWII. It had a few things it did very well, such as sustain high speeds for extended periods and tremendous range, and others it was not so good at, such as sustained hard turns and durability under fire.



Thankyou RG, that is the best thing Ive heard so far. Now I will agree with you!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 16, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
> 
> 
> > Oh I believe exactly what you are saying, but RG thinks that the P-51 is the greatest thing since bread and butter. Yes it was a great aircraft and one of the best ever built however it like all aircraft had faults also. Machines are not perfect.
> ...


*
I VOTE FOR THE F4U-4*


----------



## trackend (Apr 16, 2005)

Spite,Spite,Spite,Spite,Spite,Spite...... I must stop spitting, filthy habit.  
But seriously folks I love the Spitfire but my logical head says that the Corsair (even though not correct I like names more than numbers) was a more advanced aircraft so I believe probably on balance a better fighter. Clever bloke that Sikorsky ( Beisel of course)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 17, 2005)

The Corsair was definatly a great aircraft.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 17, 2005)

and cirtainly in the running for this title............


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 18, 2005)

Yes it should be.


----------



## Aggie08 (Apr 18, 2005)

my vote is with the mustang or the corsair... but no takers for the me-262? Could have changed the course of the war had it been utilized properly...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 19, 2005)

Aggie08 said:


> my vote is with the mustang or the corsair... but no takers for the me-262? Could have changed the course of the war had it been utilized properly...



The Corsair is a fine choice. I would not go with the 262 however. I too think it was a fine aircraft (not accounting for the engine problems), and I too think it was the best operational jet of WW2 however it was too little, too late. Needed to work out the engine problems and get more fuel and then maybe if it had been operational about a year sooner.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 19, 2005)

she wasn't much of a dogfighter either..........


----------



## trackend (Apr 20, 2005)

I read that the speed of the 262 actually caused problems as the range closed so quickly they had to reduce speed to get long enough to ensure accuacy on smaller targets like fighters ect also the aircraft had a habit of weaving when given some welly


----------



## KraziKanuK (Apr 20, 2005)

trackend said:


> I read that the speed of the 262 actually caused problems as the range closed so quickly they had to reduce speed to get long enough to ensure accuacy on smaller targets like fighters ect also the aircraft had a habit of weaving when given some welly



The a/c tended to 'snake' at high speeds.

Throttling back was not an option for under 6000rpm the throttle could not be moved quickly. On a bomber attack, the a/c would dive from a higher altitude(1500m??) to get through the fighter screen, go below the level of the bombers(500m??) and climb to loose speed. Seen a diagram in a book someplace, hence the '??'.


----------



## trackend (Apr 20, 2005)

Thanks for the info KK


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 20, 2005)

The aircraft was deffinatly too fast for conventional dogfighting. Therefore she was better suited for intercepting then dogfighting.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 20, 2005)

which is the role she was used in most...........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 21, 2005)

Correct


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 21, 2005)

and even if she did dogfight, as soon as one of those extremely fragile engines go so does she..........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 21, 2005)

Yeap the biggest problem of the 262 was her engines. I dont think she could fly on only 1.


----------



## Aggie08 (Apr 21, 2005)

needs to take a note or two from american birds...


----------



## KraziKanuK (Apr 21, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Yeap the biggest problem of the 262 was her engines. I dont think she could fly on only 1.



They could and even landed, though as with any twin, one could not take liberties.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 22, 2005)

Even the Komet had trouble flying on one engline


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 22, 2005)

Aggie08 said:


> needs to take a note or two from american birds...



Aside from the P-80 which I can not say because the P-80 did not see combat, the 262 was still more superior to any other jet in the sky and would even outflown P-59 in combat as long as the engines were working.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 22, 2005)

and the P-80 would struggle to fly if one of her engine had gone......


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 23, 2005)

KraziKanuK said:


> DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
> 
> 
> > Yeap the biggest problem of the 262 was her engines. I dont think she could fly on only 1.
> ...



The P-38 could do very well on one engine... it could even climb.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Aggie08 (Apr 23, 2005)

Yeah, that was my bad, I was more comparing the 262 to American props, a little out of line.


----------



## Concorde247 (Apr 23, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> KraziKanuK said:
> 
> 
> > DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
> ...



Yes it could, heres the proof!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 24, 2005)

a P-38 being escorted by bombers, sounds about right............

and here's awartime advert from Avro showing the lanc hapilly flying on two engines with "full payload" wich we can assume is 14,000lbs in this case.............


----------



## mosquitoman (Apr 24, 2005)

I've heard a story of a Lanc doing a low flypast on no engines before turning them all on again


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 24, 2005)

yes that wouldn't suprise me given the lanc could glide at quite high speeds.........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 24, 2005)

Most aircraft with multiple engines could fly with only one functional. It was just the early jet aircraft at the time mostly due to weight issues.

Lanc sorry to burst your bubble but B-17s have done it with 2 engines and full load and done it with 3 engines gone and no load for a little bit of time.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 24, 2005)

mmmmm, a B-17's "full load" at a guess you mean the normal maximum so what?? 6,000lbs??


----------



## Concorde247 (Apr 24, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> mmmmm, a B-17's "full load" at a guess you mean the normal maximum so what?? 6,000lbs??


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 25, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> mmmmm, a B-17's "full load" at a guess you mean the normal maximum so what?? 6,000lbs??



What I am getting at is, I dont think the Lanc could have done it with only 1 engine. The 17 was known to have flown on occasion with half of its loaded weight on only 1 engine. Naturally it would drop its weight to get back home but the 17 could do it.


----------



## delcyros (May 22, 2005)

After the datas provided by the Rechlin test in september 1944, the Me-262 was well able to continue flying with one dead engine. Speed is rated between 420 and 450 Km/h (260-280 mp/h), depending on altitude (keep in mind that airframe quality was bad as well as the speed figure is not recalculated to INA standart day as well as the engines delivered not the same poweroutput). The excentric thrust makes maneuvering difficult but not dangerous (reducing the speed). Climbing is limited but possible up to 4 m/sec (800 ft/min) at sea level decreasing in altitude. However, with one engine out you are not able to fight anyway.


----------



## Erich (May 22, 2005)

rectified at some point in the newer streamline Me 262B variants.........but of course did not see service.

Ta 152 the bst prop job !  just thought I would throw that in as a curve


----------



## lesofprimus (May 22, 2005)

> Ta 152 the best prop job !


I agree...... Oh no, are we gonna go through this all over again???????


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 22, 2005)

no it's ok, RG is no longer around to say it's the P-51.........


----------



## Erich (May 22, 2005)

good ! the Ta 152 then.....


----------



## Nonskimmer (May 22, 2005)




----------



## cheddar cheese (May 22, 2005)

Aha but how about the P-47N?


----------



## lesofprimus (May 22, 2005)

I think the -47N didnt have enough combat time to make a comparison with the Luftwaffe aircraft....... Not too sure. Ill have to read up on it to be sure....


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 22, 2005)

Im positive it saw more combat than the Ta-152


----------



## lesofprimus (May 22, 2005)

Hmmm... I think that the -47N could be considered in this... It saw more service than the -152 did, but i still believe the -152 was a better combat aircraft... 

The P-47N was destined to be the last version of the Thunderbolt to be manufactured. The first P-47N-1-RE appeared in September of 1944, and 24 were delivered by year's end. The P-47N-5-RE and subsequent batches had zero-length rocket launchers added. The R-2800-77 engine was installed in late production models such as the P-47N-25-RE. 

The P-47N gave excellent service in the Pacific in the last year of the War, particularly in escorting B-29 Superfortress bombers in raids on the Japanese mainland. P-47Ns were able to escort the bombers all the way from Saipan to Japan and on many other long, overwater flights. 

A total of 1667 P-47Ns was produced by the Farmingdale plant between December 1944 and December 1945, when the Thunderbolt line finally closed down. 149 more P-47Ns were built by the Evansville factory. V-J Day cancellation of 5934 Thunderbolts brought production of the type abruptly to an end. 

The P-47N was destined to be the last version of the Thunderbolt to be manufactured. The first P-47N-1-RE appeared in September of 1944, and 24 were delivered by year's end. The P-47N-5-RE and subsequent batches had zero-length rocket launchers added. The R-2800-77 engine was installed in late production models such as the P-47N-25-RE. 

The P-47N gave excellent service in the Pacific in the last year of the War, particularly in escorting B-29 Superfortress bombers in raids on the Japanese mainland. P-47Ns were able to escort the bombers all the way from Saipan to Japan and on many other long, overwater flights. 


In honor of designer Kurt Tank, the Fw 190's designation was changed to Tank or Ta 152. This beautiful inline-engined fighter was to be the ultimate version of the famous fighter but delays resulted in the stopgap Fw 190D, in itself an outstanding aircraft. In the chaotic final year of the Third Reich the D ended up being the major inline engine version with only a few Ta 152Hs, and possibly a few Ta 152Cs, getting into combat. 

The extended wing (14.5m), high altitude Ta 152H was indeed a sterling performer with a top speed of 755 km/h (472 mph) and a service ceiling of 15,000 m (49,215 ft). It was armed with a 30 mm cannon in the nose and two 20 mm cannon in the wing roots. Had it been built in enough numbers and been flown by expert pilots it could have taken its place alongside the Me 262 as a near unbeatable air superiority fighter and bomber killer. The lower altitude version, the Ta 152C, barely made it out of the test phase before the war ended. Between October 1944 and February 1945 when production ended, Focke-Wulf managed to roll 67 completed Ta 152 aircraft (H-0, H-1, and C-1 models) off the line. By the end of the war, more than 20,000 Fw 190s had been built; about one-third as fighter bombers.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 22, 2005)

I agree. I think the Ta-152 was a marvelous aircraft and was the future of the Luftaffe's piston engine aircraft. It was just too few, too late.


----------



## DesertWolf (May 27, 2005)

In my opinion, I think that the Ta152.H is definatly the most remarkable and most performing piston engined aircraft of WW2. In the hands of an expert pilot, it can accomplish miracles.


----------



## DesertWolf (May 27, 2005)

Have you heard of Kurt Tank's adventure with the Ta152H ?


----------



## lesofprimus (May 27, 2005)

Ummmm, yea, i think everyone here has......... If not...........

Chief designer Kurt Tank was flight-testing a Ta 152H when he encountered a flight of roving Mustangs. He simply turned toward home, applied the MW 50 system to boost his engine, and gave his pursuers the slip.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 27, 2005)

lesofprimus said:


> Ummmm, yea, i think everyone here has......... If not...........
> 
> Chief designer Kurt Tank was flight-testing a Ta 152H when he encountered a flight of roving Mustangs. He simply turned toward home, applied the MW 50 system to boost his engine, and gave his pursuers the slip.



True blue Les - I would of loved to see the look on those Mustang pilots when this "long winged FW-190" left them in the dust!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 31, 2005)

Thats if it did happen. Unfortunatly it can not be confirmed. I am not saying that it did not happen because I believe a Ta-152 could leave a P-51 in the dust, but theres a possibility it never happened.


----------



## Erich (May 31, 2005)

go to my webpages and find two small articles from 2 different pilots that flew the Ta 152.

Kurt was actually testing a Ta 152C.

it was again in my opinion the best of the piston jobs flown. Had it been able to par evenly in numbers at 30,000 plus feet with the P-51D and K, aerial combat would of been not so one sided..

look for Willi Reschkes book on Jg 301/302 by Schiffer pubs and the new Thomas Hitchcok book on the TA 152 coming this fall through Monogram pubs

E ~


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 31, 2005)

I agree with you 100% Erich. I think the Ta-152 was the best piston aircraft to come out in WW2 it just was too little too late.


----------



## P38 Pilot (Jun 22, 2005)

Hmm... I dont think the P47 was the best fighter. In my case i think the germans Me262 Jet fighter was the Best. P51 has to be second


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 23, 2005)

Nice picture there by the way.

I disagree about the Me-262. It was a good aircraft however it had many problems with its engines. Willie Messerschmitt was in the right direction with the Me-262. It showed the future of military aviation however as I said it had many problems. The engines were only good for about 10 hours and a P-51 could outmaneuver a Me-262. The 262's main advantage was its speed. It was a great bomber interceptor but it sucked at dogfighting.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 23, 2005)

I think the Ta-152, P-47N and perhaps the late model Spitfires are the main worthy candidates.

Id love to include the Series 5 fighters, but they were only the best in 1943 and as such were exceeded in terms of ability in '44 and '45.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 23, 2005)

I agree with you completely CC, but I would not go with the series 5 aircraft. They were good and underated but just my personal oppinion.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 23, 2005)

Yeah I didnt say they were the best. I said for 43 they would have been candidates but seeing as this thread covers for the whole war they are nowhere near in with a shout.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 23, 2005)

Very agreed but you effort is comendable!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 23, 2005)

How is it commendable?  Can I have a DSO?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 23, 2005)

You can have a pat on the back.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 23, 2005)

No thanks ill pass, last time someone said that I ended up with a bit of a crappy texture where I got patted


----------



## mosquitoman (Jun 23, 2005)

Hows about the Tempest, if the Italian 5 Series are included then so has this


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 23, 2005)

No, the Italian 5 Series are *NOT* included, I never said they were and made it clear that they werent twice, why is everyone ssuming they are?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 23, 2005)

well the tempest is in with a shot.........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 24, 2005)

I agree the Tempest is one of the best fighters.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 24, 2005)

Definately.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 24, 2005)

So lets see basically we are choosing from the P-51, P-47, P-38, Spitfire, Tempest, Bf-109, Fw-190, and Ta-152, right?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 24, 2005)

And I choose Fw-190/Ta-152.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 24, 2005)

Same here I go with the Ta-152H.


----------



## wmaxt (Jun 24, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> So lets see basically we are choosing from the P-51, P-47, P-38, Spitfire, Tempest, Bf-109, Fw-190, and Ta-152, right?



Is this limited to tht ETO? If not the F4U-4 should be included. Also shouldn't the Fw-190 and Ta-152 be considered as one aircraft type or are the P-47M/N and P-51H models left out?

My choice would be the P-38.

wmaxt


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 24, 2005)

No it is not limited and I am sorry I forgot those aircraft.

No I dont think the Ta-152 and the Fw-190 should not be grouped into one, they were an evolution but different planes.

In my listing there I was just listing the basic aircraft and then the different varients can be discusses for example I put P-51 but that can include whatever varients a particular person wishes. They can say the P-51B was the best of the war if they like.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 24, 2005)

The main advantage the P-38 has is the fact it has twin engines. I was reading a pilot account earlier of someone who flew P-38's in the MTO. He got shot at by Fw-190's and an engine got taken out. He managed to make it back to Sicily on the one engine at full power. He reckoned he would have died if he was in a Mustang or similar...Ill try and find it again.


----------



## wmaxt (Jun 24, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> No it is not limited and I am sorry I forgot those aircraft.
> 
> No I dont think the Ta-152 and the Fw-190 should not be grouped into one, they were an evolution but different planes.
> 
> In my listing there I was just listing the basic aircraft and then the different varients can be discusses for example I put P-51 but that can include whatever varients a particular person wishes. They can say the P-51B was the best of the war if they like.



I ask because the P-47M/N and P-51H are just as different/same as the Fw-190/Ta-152. I think of them in the same light because the reason the desigination changed was to recognize Tank not because the aircraft was of a signifigantly different design.

wmaxt


----------



## wmaxt (Jun 24, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> The main advantage the P-38 has is the fact it has twin engines. I was reading a pilot account earlier of someone who flew P-38's in the MTO. He got shot at by Fw-190's and an engine got taken out. He managed to make it back to Sicily on the one engine at full power. He reckoned he would have died if he was in a Mustang or similar...Ill try and find it again.



There are many such accounts. I found an interesting set of numbers the other day. of the 1,758 P-38s written off in the ETO only 451 failed to return to base. of the 2,520 P-51s written off, 2,201 failed to return home. Adjusted for percentage of sorties for every P-38 lost 3.8 P-51s were lost.
When compared to the P-47 the P-38/P-47 loss rates are almost the same.

wmaxt


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 24, 2005)

Wow, thats pretty amazing!


----------



## wmaxt (Jun 24, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> Wow, thats pretty amazing!



It sure puts a new light on the P-38s early problems doesn't it!

wmaxt


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 25, 2005)

> of the 1,758 P-38s written off in the ETO only 451 failed to return to base



'ang on, how were the rest lost then, they can't all have been because of maintence problems and such??


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 25, 2005)

They were written off but still flew back to base.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 25, 2005)

Upon landing at the base the mechanics discovered that it was not repairable.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 25, 2005)

what, when they saw an entire engine blown off


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 27, 2005)

There are a lot of things that can cause it to be deemed unrepairable. Structural damage can be very hard to repair especially if it is in the ribbing.


----------



## wmaxt (Jun 27, 2005)

Also once an aircraft is twisted or out of true you only fly it again in extream circumstanses. Amoung the numbers written off are training accidents, collisions and any aircraft lost on the ground.

The P-47 has a better total writeoff rate, it seams that 3,077 were written off (423,000 sorties) with 1,043 not returning to base. One note has to be mentioned here P-47s flew the Britten to German border escort leg twice a day on bomber missions. These missions were not normaly heavily contested, greatly reducing both opportunities and danger while doubling sortie count. 

wmaxt


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 28, 2005)

Do you have the written off records for other aircraft?


----------



## Parmigiano (Aug 2, 2005)

Hi everybody, been lurking the forum for a while and finally registered

One reflection point on this topic: it is almost impossible to come to a rational conclusion, we'll never be able to compare apples with apples.
For instance, every aircraft or improvement made in Germany after 1943 was heavily burdened by the overall situation (i.e. need to work with lowering quality fuel and raw materials, need to be assembled underground etc.) while the developments managed in the US and UK could rely on optimal environment and resources.

Also, the Germans were forced to shove in service every new achievement (often disregarding the reliability) while the Allied forces tend to rely on validated solutions: this could very well explain in part the German advantage on shown technology.

If we want to evaluate the design, then the Me262 is in my opinion unchallenged (although it was more a bomber-destroyer than a fighter)

What would had happened if Junkers could had tested the 004 in a normal situation instead of 'freezing' the development as soon as it was barely suited for operations? We will never know.  

ciao


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 2, 2005)

Welcome to the site Parm... 

I find the Fw-190D-9 to be the best Fighter of WWII... About 1 out of 3 members of this Board also agrees with that aircraft...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 3, 2005)

i'm not sure what i'd pick........


----------



## Smokey (Aug 3, 2005)

Does the He162 count?







http://members.tripod.com/airmodeller/48GrHe162.htm

It had some structural problems, but these appear to have been solved during production
It would have a great mix of speed and maneuvrability, range seems poor, so best interceptor maybe?
Service history is a tad short and the claims are 1 He 162 shot down by an allied fighter for one typhoon lost in return


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 3, 2005)

Lanc, if memory serves me right, u never did put ur 2 cents in on this one...


----------



## Parmigiano (Aug 3, 2005)

Les, I agree with the majority on the 'Langenase Dora' as best prop driven fighter of WW II

About the He 162 Salamander, I would not personally include it in the 'best fighter' contest.
The machine was developed in the 'Volksjaeger' program, to have an high performance fighter that should have been cheap and fast to produce and easy enough to fly by untrained pilots.
It achieved the first goals but not the last: apparently was a bit tricky to fly and required an experienced horseman.
It is a mistery if it actually saw combact action, although a good number was produced and several hundreds were almost completed by the end of the war.
As many of the last year planes was pushed in production before all the 'natural' youth problems were ironed out, typically they had to change the planned guns (2 x MK108) with 2x MG151 because the vibration of the 30mm were too much for the structure.

A strenghtened version, plus many other variants with Jumo 004 instead of BMW003, with butterfly tail, with 2x Argus pulsejet (the same engine as V1 cruise missile) and others were either on drawing board or in prototype stage.

Sorry, I can't state numbers here because I'm away from home and have no access to my documentation: in case I will come back with it but not before September.

cheers


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 3, 2005)

I agree with you Les either the Fw-190 D-9 or the Ta-152H.



Parmigiano said:


> Also, the Germans were forced to shove in service every new achievement (often disregarding the reliability)



This I disagree with. Yes they did shove into service everything whether it was reliable or not which they should not have done but they did this by choice and dumb mistakes. They did not have to they had aircraft that were competitive with the allied aircraft like the Dora-9. They just made bad choices by not making them in large numbers rather than mass produce projects that had not affect on the outcome of the war.


----------



## Parmigiano (Aug 3, 2005)

Yes Adler, I think you have a good point here: how much they forced in service 'experimental' planes because of the desperate situation and how much because of their 'technological nymphomania'.

Another peculiarity unexplainable by common sense is why they released the patent rules only very late (I remember late in 44):the Allieds used to share know-how routinely (see Merlin built by Packard, Hurricanes and Lancs in Canada, the sleeve valve issue in the Napier Sabre cured with technology borrowed from Bristol etc.), while in Germany every Company was engineering their projects in almost complete isolation.

As example, the 262 and 163 were developed at Messerschmidt in two completely separated pipelines, nowhere the Lippisch and the Voigt team shared know how and solutions.

This brought to the development of many potentially great designs but at the cost of a waste of resources that no Nation (with the possible exception of US because of industrial power and 'privileged' situation) could have sustained.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 3, 2005)

Actually many programs were worked on by several companies. Lippisch worked on several Messerschmitt programs and because of work load some were handed off to other companies like the Me-155 was handed over to Blohm Voss and later renamed the Bv-155 after design changes.


----------



## wmaxt (Sep 24, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Do you have the written off records for other aircraft?



I have a few numbers but my research has shown that the following numbers I'm going to include the paragraphs both before and after the numbers. This is from the 8th AF Losses against the AXIS Powers.

Other losses occurred too. Collisions, training accidents and so on. The table below summarizes all losses in the ETO during the war:

B-17 - 4,754
B-24 - 2,112
P-47 - 1,043
P-38 - 451
P-51 - 2,201

Now this does not include any of the other type medium aircraft and light aitcraft, the 9th and 11th tactical AF losses and other commands.

At first I thought it was all these particular aircraft but not wright-offs howeverthe more I check the more I belive they represent all the aitcraft of these types lost but only by the 8th AF.

Added together they ammount to about 2/3 of the aircraft the AAF statistical records show. The following numbers are the more common numbers of total aircraft lost in the ETO by every AAF group:

Plane - Sorties - losses
P-47 - 423,435 - 3,077
P-51 - 213,837 - 2,520
P-38 - 129,849 - 1758
P-40 - 67,059 - 553
P-39 - 30,547 - 107

These numbers add up to about 1/3 more than the AAF statistical records which claim we lost 5,324 but according to the 8th AF losses page those don't include wright-offs (the AAF stats).

I have yet to reconcile the different numbers, the one thing I can say for certain is that 90% of the P-38 plane to plane contact with the Germans and the losses resunting from the "awful record of the P-38 escorts" was in the 8th and resulted in 451 losses for 1,700+/- kills this still included cold/engine problems/experiance/numbers/etc. Those issues including air to air contact didn't affect those aircraft in the 9th AF who were primarily on attack missions. Also those comparisons I made earlier are basicaly ok (they still apply to the escorts where the 8th airforce losses page is referenced) they need to be taken with a grain of salt.

As I get a clearer picture I will post it. If I have confused or missled anyone I appoligize - it was unintentional.

wmaxt


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 24, 2005)

Good info there thanks.


----------



## JonJGoldberg (Oct 15, 2005)

…I’m a new member, stumbled upon this site looking for photos for one of my CFS-2 P-51D repaints.

I’ve been a WW-2 Aircraft junkie for forever. I was born in 1961.

When I started looking around, I saw names I’ve seen on other ‘flightsim’ sites. Wow!!! Here’s where those guys hang!!!

I usually keep quiet about things; but, for lack of a broader vocabulary, the ‘muck’ surrounding which was the best/worst aircraft... 

To me things are a bit clearer cut. For example: To argue weight be given to sheer performance, or to the ease of manufacture, or to the aircraft’s ability to perform it’s specified task negating it’s actual environment, is, simply nonsense.

Create ‘Weighted’ awards if you’d like. But the ‘Best’ award should be for the best, period.

Best fighter of WW-2 without question, was/is the North American P-51. It may not have been the fastest, hardest hitting, survivable, or most agile fighter made during the time. In fact it may not have held any performance category ‘record’, except range. Combined with the ability to meet most of is adversaries on equal or better footing, as an entire package, the best is the ‘51’; there was simply none better. Runner up has to be the Hawker Hurricane. Again, as a package, as applied during the Battle of Britain, there was no more ‘outstanding’ fighter. These aircraft excelled as none others during WW-2, in my opinion. No other fighter aircraft affected the war as they did. Honorable mention in order of preference: Me-109; Spitfire; FW-190; F6F-3; P-47. I believe the ‘Great Aircraft’ line ends here, cold but... My opinion.

There were many other wonderful fighter aircraft fielded; such as the Re-2005, the Me-262, the Ki-100, the La-7, the A6M-2, the Ms-420, or the Typhoon. Standouts in limited encounters; or within their specialized ‘window’ of opportunity; or handicapped by fleeting production quality; seeing very limited war time exposure; or great before their weaknesses were ‘understood’; or produced in time to serve on both sides; or when they didn’t catch fire and stayed together in the air. Some, fate simply wouldn’t allow, such as the Whirlwind, Lighting, or Mosquito as they possessed, for their time, the security of an extra engine, the penalty of the same. Add to the penalty side extra costs in acquisition operation, with the exceptions of maybe the Me-262, to lesser degree the P-38 and Mosquito, twin engine fighters were not on the 1st rung until the ‘modern jet’ era.

If we were to base the best WW2 fighter, argue weight be given to sheer performance, or to the ease of manufacture, or to the aircraft’s ability to perform it’s specified task negating it’s actual environment, the winner/s would be the F4U Corsair La-11 (direct evolution of the La-5). Built well into the 50’s these were the last new build aircraft that governments (France USSR) paid to have built and that served as fighters (No A-26, Pe-2, or Piper ‘Enforcer’ comments please) during WW2. Money talks, BS walks.
If I were asked which fighter I was to fly during WW2, it would be, recently changed from the P-51, and not even on my personal favorite list, like an F4U, or Tempest, until recently, the P-47. Wow, why not the plane I said was the best. Well, although the ‘51’ was the best fighter, it is not my 1st personal choice because although it excelled in escort rolls, I wonder what accounting history would have awarded the ‘51’ if it were to have to intercept a bomber formations with fighter escort; in other words if the tables were turned. Or to be blunt, I don’t think the ‘51’ would have been the success it was if it was to have the roll of being a defensive fighter. Ground attack missions during Korea, from what I remember, from what I’ve read, were not a good match, and I feel maybe the ‘47’s in ANG service at the time, were not brought to Korea, as they were much more costly to operate… but then how do I justify the ‘new build’ Marine Corp F4Us… Anyway, the ‘47’ seems the WW2 package that is most survivable in my eyes. Fast enough to walk away from all except the Me-262, and rare variants of other types, heavily armed, armored, wide landing gear, simple (although not without development problems) powerful, robust, air cooled radial; no fuel in the wings (-N/K the exception); and from all accountings ( stats that I can recall), extremely well made, even the Curtis built ships.

As for the worst fighter of WW2, for me, although its design ascetic has caused me to very much adore this plane, it would have to be the CAC Boomerang. For the survival of the Continent; in case planes could not be delivered, needing to be operational ASAP, therefore designed around a trainer, the trainer’s power plant (parts available or able to be produced in Australia at the time), built knowing it’s performance was substandard (…as maneuverable as a P-39 it was said), fielded when Australia’s situation was not as dire, as they were beginning to receive replacement aircraft (March 1943); not so much when they needed them, nor quite as many as they would have liked, but none the less, before the Boomerang was entering service. Not to say that the aircraft was a poor design, it wasn’t given the ingredients, it bettered the NA-50 sold to Peru in ’39, in some respects; it simply never shot down any adversary fighter, not even by chance, and remained in production until the end of hostilities. Runners up in no particular order: The P-40, far too many built, as the 3rd most American produced fighter aircraft during WW2. Sub standard performance even when new, although it seems it was well liked by it pilots, and looked great with a shark mouth painted on it. Stacked up, on paper it was never better than it’s rivals, except when 1st deployed by the ‘Tigers’ in China, but the P-40 always seemed to have something going for it. Its just that the US spent far too much time and energies on this aircraft in whole. The A6M-5, what were they thinking? Piolts needed protection, but the type was not ever intended for the weight gain. Released as an improvement to the A6M-2, this aircraft was totally outclassed by its 1st tier adversaries the F-6F, F-4U. Yes it was able to effectively deal with a P-40N, or a Boomerang, but so was the A6M-2. The PZL P.24 series fighter. Wow; fighter was an export success!! Yet by mid 1940 all had perished, out classed by every adversary, save maybe transports gliders. Stukas have claimed this aircraft on their victory lists. It’s technical innovations rewarded pilots all the disadvantages of both bi-winged and mono-winged aircraft, in a single package.

The thing I enjoy most about the ‘worst’ fighters of WW2, as I sit comfortable in my chair, debating events of the past, is they all have wonderful folklore. Yes the ‘great’ ones do too, but they lack the intensity, and fun of these ‘worsts’. In my flight sim games; I try my best, with countless hrs spent ‘moding’ .air files, to hone in on flight charistics, going as far as timing climb, roll, dive, and damage rates within the sim to get them to appear as close as possible to averaged published specs; it is just so much more fun flying a P-40C and winning against 3 or 4 Zeros than doing the same in a P-51D.

…I think this was a long enough opening letter. I’m glad to have joined. Look forward to some fun. Hope to hear from you soon.

Jon J Goldberg

A Few Screen Shots From My CFS-2 Flight Sim… >>>


----------



## plan_D (Oct 15, 2005)

Welcome to the site. 

I would like to point out that you just contradicted yourself almost throughout that entire posting. You state that the P-51 was the greatest fighter of World War II on the basis that it gives an all-round package. But then move on to wondering if the P-51 would be able to handle itself in other roles. It's not exactly an all-round package if all it can do is escort bombers to the target and back. 

You remove statistics from the discussion because in the majority of cases they do not favour the P-51. And the basis of the Hurricane being the runner-up because it provided an all-round package during the Battle of Britain? But whatever the Hurricane could do, the Spitfire could do better ...even in the Battle of Britain. 

And you assault the Mosquito and P-38 because they are twin-engined ...which makes them inferior how? The Mosquito and P-38 were certainly more of an all-round package than the P-51. The Mosquito suffered no increase in production need because it had little effect on the war machine, being a design of wood. 

I do not understand the statement of "simply none better" for the P-51. It what aspect? That one region of escort duties? I have defended the P-51 on many occasions from the onslaught of people on here stating it's over-rated ...and, in my opinion, it was one of the best for it's achievement during the war but no way was the P-51 undisputed champion of the skies during World War II. 

If I've misunderstood what you were saying. Please explain to my feeble brain. And, again, welcome to the site. Looking forward to good discussion. 

By the way, mention the looks of the Mustang to back up your argument. Because it was one B-E-A-utiful plane.


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 15, 2005)

U know, if the P-40 had the range of the P-51, and flew in as many #'s as the -51, people would be saying the P-40 was the greatest fighter in WW2....

Maybe it was the best escort fighter...


----------



## JonJGoldberg (Oct 15, 2005)

Thanks plan_D,
In reply…

…I should have been clearer. To clarify, what I mean by entire package >> There was no better fighter aircraft package than P-51, especially as applied by the 8th Air Force. No other aircraft could equal the P-51s knock out performance combination of power in the air, low cost to the nation’s wallets that flew her. It was cost effective, it was cheaper to develop, each copy was cheaper to build, and each mission cheaper to finance, as it needed less gas for instance, than its friendly rivals, the ’38, or ‘47. Built in large numbers, the ’51 was trainable, serviceable, and able to meet adversaries on equal or better footing, most of the time. Available, expendable yet indispensable, no other single WW2 fighter affected the ‘big’ picture of that conflict in a more significant way, with exception, possibly, given to the Hurricane. As for the other rolls, no aircraft does everything. The P-51 was not designed at all to be a defensive fighter, no variant was constructed to deal with bomber formations, although there was a ‘mud warrior’ variant. In modern terms it would be an interceptor, as the F-104. But unlike the F-104 or the Fw-190, bombers were not the ‘favored food’; the ’51 was designed to ‘deal with’ fighters. This it did, did well, so well it bettered any other fighter aircraft at doing it’s job during WW2 (…and it looked good doing it). It was better at defeating Fw-190s than the Fw-190 was at defeating bombers. It was better at defeating Me-109s than Me109s were at defeating bombers. Part of the reason the 190s 109s suffered bad or no gas, and or the shortage of supplies and or skilled pilots is because of the ‘51’s contribution. The 190s 109s deserve no handicap due to this ‘hardship’. Their hardships affirm, in my opinion, their inability to ‘handle’ their jobs/circumstance effectively. 

…The major ‘roll’ of the ’51, its reason for being; to escort bombers to from targets. It was so capable at doing this, they changed tactics from defend the bombers, to destroy the Luftwaffe. 51s still had the extra ammo to strafe. The only argument to dethroning the ’51 may be; was the ‘51 better at defeating its circumstance, than the Hurricane was when she her pilots defended England. So what if the ’38 and or Mosquito offer a more flexible mission menu. They could not, and did not turn the tide, to the degree that the ’51 did. I thought this was a discussion on what was/is the best fighter of WW2; Not most flexible weapons platform, or best dog-fighter for that matter.

…I mention no statistics as I’d like the discussion to be about the outcome; not the statistic. The conclusions (my opinions) should stand on their own, I wish not to be encumbered by the bantering of statistical tit-for-tats. For example you may say, no Hurricane, no Mustang, as there would have been no British spec to replace the P-40s, no RR Merlin’s for Packard to copy… Boring is the discussion where we say that one stat carries more weight than another, or is more valid than another, or should be viewed using ‘this’ ratio, or that mathematical twist, for example; Statistically the Hurricane’s kill vs. loss ratio was better than plane ‘x’ but worse than plane ‘y’ which you said was worse than plane ‘a’, a type whose performance is generally considered to be on par with that of the Hurricane… blah blah blah...

…The Hurricane over the Spit! How when the Spit was/is a more capable aircraft, except when it came to ‘mud fighting’? Well the Brits did not have the 6 months to build the number of Spits needed to fill the fighter roll. To me, at the time of the Battle of Britain, the Spit was the equivalent of the Me-262. It represented the best the country could offer, technically. It was the weapon of last resort. It bettered anything the enemy could muster, on a one to one basis. But that circumstance was not the reality. The brunt of the reasonablity was that of the Hurricane for England, and the Fw-190 for Germany. Not the ‘glory’ weapons of thier time, the Spitfire, or Me-262.

…Twin engine aircraft, during WW2, to a larger degree than is true today, simply cost too darn much to have been ‘standard issue’. Even when their structure is made of non-strategic materials they still have two engines. Their pilots support staff require more training. They require more service hours, across more parts types (especially in contra-rotational types). They require more gas, support facilities in better conditions, with longer runways in more stable environments. Lots of extra effort, resource expended in order to accommodate that one extra engine. The ’38 Mosquito were indeed worth the expense. They were shining examples of twin engine performance capabilities. They simply couldn’t or wouldn’t be built in large enough numbers to affect the war as the ‘51.

…What I meant by best Fighter. Miss America was not necessarily the ‘prettiest’ girl on the stage (…although this is, in my opinion, why there are no more Miss America pageants). She was representing American beauty as a package, not just the exterior (in theory). Best fighter represents to me the aircraft that combined it all. Able to serve dominate within its category where, when, and how called upon. In order to be able to be called ‘Best Fighter’ the aircraft may not be the most adaptable, or able to dominate any single or combined category subset. The Best Fighter would be the one that, as a fighter, performed its assigned objectives so well no other type could have replaced it, and in being irreplaceable, would have changed the war’s outcome to the greatest degree if its type were not in service as a fighter. It’s in this aspect that I nominate the ’51 as best fighter of WW2, and say that there was simply none better.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Oct 15, 2005)

Welcome Jon, but you might want to shrink down your sig a bit. It's massive.


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 16, 2005)

Thats not a siggy, just a pic he posted....

JG, while ur posts are informative and detailed, u seem alittle too enamoured by the P-51... Its use was severely limited to escort duties, and while it performed excellently at that role, it wasnt until the latter part of the War that it rose above all others... 

And it was also fielded in great numbers, where the Americans had 60 of them escorting a bomber group against 15 Luftwaffe aircraft on intercept... 

U dont seem to hold any Axis aircraft in high regard JG.... Is that from lack of information, or are u one of those propaganda soiled individuals???


----------



## Nonskimmer (Oct 16, 2005)

lesofprimus said:


> Thats not a siggy, just a pic he posted....


Ah, so it is. In that case, ignore what I said. Most people do.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 16, 2005)

I don't ignore you, NS, I just attack what you say instead. 

And if the P-51 was never invented, the P-38 would have comfortably filled the gap. There was nowhere more secure for escort fighters over Europe than Britain.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 16, 2005)

I completly disagree the P-51D only made such an impact because of the massive amount of numbers that were in the air. Just as Les pointed out if it had been the other way around and P-47's were the most numerous then it would be the P-47 that you are talking about. The P-47 was even a better aircraft all around than the P-51D as was the Fw-190D.


----------



## JonJGoldberg (Oct 16, 2005)

Sorry Nonskimmer, you are right. Carried away.

Lesofprimus, if a duck had the beak talons of a hawk, would it be a hawk. The P-40 didn’t have the range or performance of a P-51, as you know. But it seems that you may not be aware that the P-40 was built in numbers just a few thousand less than the ‘51. Since we are not talking about a Japanese aircraft, this is a small numerical difference. About 13,700 P-40s were built, all during WW2. About 15,600 P-51s were built, and I’m not exactly sure how many of them were built during WW2, but my memory of what I’ve read says about 14,250. As a matter of fact the P-40 was built in greater number than any other US fighter with two exceptions. The P-47 P-51. Not that I like bantering stats…

As for Axis fighters that I admire…
From Germany >>
*Seems that the Fw-190 Dora is a site fave. I also think the Dora was an aircraft with few or no peer. Fast, sturdy, agile, adaptable. The Fw-190 was produced after the war for the French (A-8s an NC-900s; Seems they just went plum nuts after the surrender of Germany, buying German American aircraft, as if children in a candy store) Turkey, which supplanted German supplied Fw-190s received in ’42. Turkey flew Fw-190s until about 1948/9.
*Another German fighter aircraft I admire, He-219. Less than 300 built, and in service with 1 night fighter group; I/NJG 1. Heavily armed, this night fighter, probably the best of the war, was ‘the’ Mosquito catcher.
*I can’t explain, but I also admire the Hs 123 ‘mud fighter’. Replaced buy the Ju 87, this biplane’s short lived front line career was replaced with miserable overworked conditions on the Russian fronts until withdrawn due to attrition in mid ’44. 
From Italy >>
*M. C. 205V – Smashing Italian duds, German power. About 30 to 40 MPH slower than the average front line fighter fielded by the Allies, but this was the ‘Zero’ of Europe, in my opinion. There are two important differences however between the M.C. 205V the A6M-5. The M.C. 205V could dive, and it could roll.
*Re-2005 – Same as the M.C. 205V; A little less lovable duds, a smidgen less able to dive and roll, but a bit more agile horizontally, a tick faster, and 1 extra cannon firing through the prop shaft. 
From Japan >>
*The Ki-100. 1st flown in Feb. ’45, the re-engined Ki-61 was brilliant. About 270 of type 1a and 100 of type 1b were built. With maneuverability unmatched by anything else in the sky, save maybe those old Oscars; able to fly high enough with just enough speed to catch B-29s, even with pilots of little to no experience, they found a way through the ‘47Ns ‘51Ds and were able to score a few ’29 Super Forts. 
*The J2M5. About 500 built by Mitsubishi, and an unknown number by Koza, this aircraft was able to climb more steeply was more responsive to controls than anything in US inventory according to the US test pilots who flew a pair in early ’46, that were captured a year earlier.
*Ki-46. Wow. If you think the Mosquito was something… Almost untouchable, with a top speed of 390 to 400 mph, until the final stages of the war, and in service from early ’41 as a recon aircraft. Dinah was a streamlined beauty. Never fully developed as a fighter, hastily employed as a night fighter, she was of the few able to catch Super Forts.

No, not a propaganda junkie, however I believe I must bear some permanent damage from exposure. 

DerAdlerIstGelandet, As I wrote… 

“If I were asked which fighter I was to fly during WW2, it would be… the P-47. Wow, why not the plane I said was the best. Well, although the ‘51’ was the best fighter, it is not my 1st personal choice because although it excelled in escort rolls, I wonder what accounting history would have awarded the ‘51’ if it were to have to intercept a bomber formations with fighter escort; in other words if the tables were turned. Or to be blunt, I don’t think the ‘51’ would have been the success it was if it was to have the roll of being a defensive fighter.” 

“In order to be able to be called ‘Best Fighter’ the aircraft may not be the most adaptable, or able to dominate any single or combined category subset. The Best Fighter would be the one that, as a fighter, performed its assigned objectives so well no other type could have replaced it, and in being irreplaceable, would have changed the war’s outcome to the greatest degree if its type were not in service as a fighter. It’s in this aspect that I nominate the ’51 as best fighter of WW2, and say that there was simply none better.”

Too add, there were more '47s in the sky than '51s. I gave production numbers for the '40 '51 above. '47 production totals are about 15,660. Fw-190, about 19,424. This number is higher than either the '51, or '47. So there were plenty made, why do you feel there were less opertunities for the P-40, or the Fw-190 to dethrone the '51 is not clear to me.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 16, 2005)

The P-51 was a good escort fighter and nothing more. It would have been a lousy interceptor and meager defense fighter. Its only attribute was its range and shear numbers. That does not make it the best.


----------



## JonJGoldberg (Oct 16, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet,
I see we must agree to disagree. I feel the ’51 was a good fighter escort. So good at being an escort it was the single best fighter of WW2. I agree, it may not have been as capable at anything else. But what the Allies needed, more than any other ‘fighter type’ in order to see their strategies succeed, was a proper fighter escort. They didn't’t need an aerobat, or multi-roll fighter, as badly as an escort. Until the Mustang, potential could be found in the ‘38, and ’47, but both were expensive, thirsty aircraft. The ’47 was less expensive thirsty than the ’38, and on the ‘scene’ before the ’51 in RR/Packard duds, was therefore built in the greatest number. Only a handful of the 8ths pilots retained the ’47 when offered. I believe only one squad refused to switch to ‘51s. ‘47s ‘38s can credit more ‘top’ aces than ‘51s. But it could also be argued that the ’51 came later, Americans were rotating pilots more frequently then. I hate stats.
If the ’51 were missing history may have been much different. If the Fw-190 were missing, maybe there may not have been the ’51, but history would have would not have been much different. The conclusion I draw from this statement is that the ’51 was better at being a ‘fighter’, than the Fw-190, or ’40, or ’47, or Me-262, ’38, La-7, Spitfire…
Another view, if you would, would be an MVP in sports. The MVP may not be the singular best at any/every measured category. What he/she is, is the best the sport can offer. Not only is their performance above average (not necessarily the best) but the contribution they make is best seen only grows when their ‘measured’ ingredients are viewed in conclusion. MVPs exceed the performance their individual specs especially when ever those ingredients are looked at in pieces. MVPs need to have and added something. Usually they are able to do something special, no other has done. Also they are on the right team at the end of the season. I believe the Fw-190D to be the MVP fighter of Germany, the entire Axis powers, but it was not the MVP fighter of the war, it was on the wrong team.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 16, 2005)

I will agree that P-51 may have made the most impact for the allies but I still can not place it as the best fighter of WW2. There were still better aircraft and I feel that the aircraft should be chosen because of its qualities and not because of its impact.


----------



## JonJGoldberg (Oct 16, 2005)

...I believe impact is the best testiment of quality!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 16, 2005)

Well you are entitled to your opinion, however lets see the Fw-190D and the P-47 were better quality in my opinion and they did not make as much of impact yet they were much better aircraft.....


----------



## plan_D (Oct 16, 2005)

That is hardly a fair comparison for the fighter itself if you're basing it on what the side the said aircraft is on achieved. The Fw-190D was a remarkable interceptor and certainly something the Luftwaffe needed most but because Germany lost the war, it's not the best. 

What if the P-51 had never existed. Well, the P-38 while thirsty was a capable and adaptable machine. The heavy bombers didn't carry the full brunt of the war. In fact, I would say during the latter half of 1944 fighter-bombers would have been the most important plane type in Allied service. Our ground forces desperately needed that air support and heavy bombers, with their escorts, cannot provide that duty. The P-38 could have filled the void of the P-51. And the U.S economy could have supported it. 

On the Hurricane against Spitfire. The Spitfire was superior in every aspect of design except from build time and expense. Had the Hurricane never existed and all British fighter production been thrown on the Spitfire in 1936 - then there may not have been the amount of interceptor squadrons that were present in the BoB. But the lesser amount of actually aircraft would have been acceptable because the aircraft were just better.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 16, 2005)

I agree pD. If the P-51 had not come along it would have been the P-38 or the P-47 or hell maybe they would have brought over the Corsair. The Corsair too was a much better fighter all around and in every catagory than the P-51. The P-51 was a pretty aircraft though.


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 16, 2005)

Well said pD, I agree also.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 16, 2005)

Yeap same here but some people just dont see through the myth...... Naw just kidding everyone is entitled to there opinion. I just dont have to agree with it! 

Oh well yall have a good time, see you when I get back from the Range.


----------



## JonJGoldberg (Oct 16, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet... Were the Fw-190 '47 of higher quality? How? The '51 type fielded variants that were better in every performance category, save the amount of lead able to be fired at an advisory, than either the ’47 or Fw-190 (Yes, no piston aircraft has exceeded the claimed 505 mph of the XP-47J – not fielded, nor the high altitude grace of the TA-153, with it’s highly specialized high aspect long span wing – not fielded). I know of no ‘190 pilots that climbed back into one after piloting a Me-262. I know of only a handful of pilots that wanted to revert back to the ’47 after flying the ’51. For that matter, the 2 ’51 pilots in Italy didn’t trade their P-80s to revert to ‘51s. Not that any pilot really had a choice…

plan_D…You are fun. Achievements are to be considered especially when talking of the ‘best’, when achievements by the individual contribute in such a manner, as to allow the whole (the team) to achieve. That is an MVP. MVPs are rarely, if ever, chosen form the side of lesser accomplishment (at lest in the States).

Although capable the ’38 required too many parts, pristine service facilities, and suffered severe engine problems in Europe. From www.p-38online.com … “When the equipment was working properly, the P-38 was a definite match for German fighters. In fact, when below 20,000 ft., the P-38 was superior in many ways. The problem was that the Germans rarely engaged American fighters at lower altitudes. General Doolittle was especially fed up with all the engine problems. Many theories exist as to the reason why. In other theaters, the Allison engines were fairly reliable. One theory was that the quality of the British aircraft fuel was not a high as the American developed aircraft fuel. When operating with the British fuel, this theory states that the turbochargers would become more volatile and cause terminal engine failures. Another possible theory was the nature of the combat and weather. The aircraft, especially in the fall/winter months, were constantly soaked with moisture on the grounds. Combine that with flying at extreme high altitudes, conditions were ripe for engine failures. In other theaters, the P-38s flew at lower altitudes, and were not operating in the same weather conditions. Whatever the reason for the engine problems, the P-38 was on the way out in the ETO.” 
“Early 1944, Tony LeVier was ordered to get to the ETO fast. The P-38 was awash in rumors or how deadly it can be to fly. Pilots not experienced with twin-engine flying were having many preventable accidents. Many of these pilots were killed not by the enemy, but a lack of knowledge on how to operate in case of an emergency. With the many engine problems, operating with one engine was a necessity. At some point in the war in the ETO, every pilot would probably be faced with a one-engine flying situation. LeVier was to get to Britain and demonstrate flying techniques to the pilots and would in the process hopefully dispel many rumors, which were unfounded.
LeVier believed too little testing at high altitudes was done before sending the P-38s to Britain. He also believed that too many experienced pilots were spread too thin in the pilot ranks, and that the cockpit heat was a serious problem.”

The ’47 however, that plane could have, as seen with the ’47 aircraft starting with P-47-D-RE-25, especially the P-47N replaced the ’51 and it is debatable weather or not it could have been as effective. From www.p47pilots.com “
P-47 Reigns Supreme over P-51 Mustang 
Don Whinnem B-17 Escort Mission 
352nd FG ETO - 
We were escorting B-17s. I was flying Al Marshall's wing. We got into a mixup and got separated from the Group. I looked over my left shoulder and saw something coming in. I called , 'Al, there's a bandit coming in at 7 o'clock high'. 
We did a scissors. Al broke left, I broke right and when I completed my circle it looked like Al was being shot up by an ME109 I put the throttle to the firewall, poured on the water injection and got on his tail. When I got within 200 yards I started firing and got strikes all over the plane. But as soon as he was hit he broke up sharply, and only then did I see the square wingtips and square tail. It was a P-51! 
I called our Group Commander, Col. Joe Mason, a real tiger, and said 'Sir,there are some P-51s in the area'. He came back, real caustic, 'The hell they are. They're 109s. Shoot the bastards down'. 'But sir, one of them is a P-51 and I just shot it up pretty good'. Silence. 
Well, I located the P-51 again, and by this time he knew we were 47s, so I pulled up alongside to take a look. I didn't know it was Glenn Eagleston, but he looked like he was hurting. There was nothing I could do, so I left him and joined our formation. 
I got part of the story later that day and the rest of it 3 months later. It went all the way up to the 8th Fighter Command Hqs......A p-47 had shot up a P-51. Col Mason had to go up there and explain it to the brass. But our story held up. The P-51 was 150 miles off copurse, and his camera film showed him shooting at a P-47. 
The trouble was that an FW190 and a P-47 have the same silhouette. You have to see the planview to see the elliptical wings. 
Three months later I crash landed near a 9th AF base, and was taken to their hospital with a banged up nose and forehead. Eagleton was stationed there and they knew my name from the flap at Hqs, so he looked me up and we drank beer at the club and flew the mission all over again. 
Eagleton swore he was shooting at a FW190, and even my camera film looked like I was shooting at a 109 to our Intelligence Officer. Glenn said the only thing that saved him was the armor shield behind the cockpit.. The bullets came in over his shoulder, hit the instrument panel, knocking most of them out.. When he got to his base it was weathered in and he was forced to bail out. His instruments were too shot up to try it. 
And that's how Don Whinnem shot down Glenn Eagleston - something no German pilot was able to do. Glenn ended up with 20 1/2 confirmed victories, tops in the 9th AF. Whinnem was no slouch either. He didn't get credit for that P-51, but he got enough 109s and 190s to make him an Ace. 

However concider the following… 

This aircraft information is from the USAF Museum Archives
SPECIFICATIONS P-47D 
Span: 40 ft. 9 in. 
Length: 36 ft. 2 in. 
Height: 14 ft. 8 in. 
Weight: 17,500 lbs. max. 
Armament: Six or eight .50 cal. machine guns and either ten rockets or 2,500 lb. of bombs 
Engine: One Pratt Whitney R-2800-59 of 2,430 hp. 
Crew: One 
Cost: $85,000 
PERFORMANCE 
Maximum speed: 433 mph. 
Cruising speed: 350 mph. 
Range: 1,030 miles 
Service Ceiling: 42,000 ft. 

This aircraft information is from the USAF Museum Archives
SPECIFICATIONS P-51D 
Span: 37 ft. 0 in. 
Length: 32 ft. 3 in. 
Height: 13 ft. 8 in. 
Weight: 12,100 lbs. max. 
Armament: Six .50-cal. machine guns and ten 5 in. rockets or 2,000 lbs. of bombs. 
Engine: Packard built Rolls-Royce "Merlin" V-1650 of 1,695 hp. 
Cost: $54,000 
PERFORMANCE 
Maximum speed: 437 mph. 
Cruising speed: 275 mph. 
Range: 1,000 miles 
Service Ceiling: 41,900 ft.
SPECIFICATIONS (P-38L) 
Span: 52 ft. 
Length: 37 ft. 10 in. 
Height: 12 ft. 10 in. 
Weight: 17,500 lbs. loaded 
Armament: Four .50-cal. machine guns and one 20mm cannon 
Engines: Two Allison V-1710s of 1,475 hp. ea. 
Cost: $115,000 
PERFORMANCE 
Maximum speed: 414 mph 
Cruising speed: 275 mph 
Range: 1,100 miles 
Service Ceiling: 40,000 ft.

At $31,000 dollar, or $61,000 savings (in 1945 dollars) for what appears on paper to be the same thing. Could the US economy absorb this; plus the added cost to operate the ’47, or ‘38? Yep. But how much less aid would the US have given after the war, if indeed the ’47, or ’38 proved as capable as the ’51. These ‘cheap’ escort fighter aircraft (the P-51) do have claim to 1 vital stat. 1 that I didn’t want to mention, as I hate stats. The ’51 by war's end had destroyed 4,950 enemy aircraft in the air, more than any other fighter in Europe.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 16, 2005)

JonJGoldberg said:


> “Early 1944, Tony LeVier was ordered to get to the ETO fast. The P-38 was awash in rumors or how deadly it can be to fly. Pilots not experienced with twin-engine flying were having many preventable accidents. Many of these pilots were killed not by the enemy, but a lack of knowledge on how to operate in case of an emergency. With the many engine problems, operating with one engine was a necessity. At some point in the war in the ETO, every pilot would probably be faced with a one-engine flying situation. LeVier was to get to Britain and demonstrate flying techniques to the pilots and would in the process hopefully dispel many rumors, which were unfounded.”



LeVier went over to Europe to demonstrate engine out procedures on the P-38 - I know this first hand because my ex-wife and him had their offices next to each other (he actually became a family friend). There was not an intense multi engine transition for pilots going into the -38 and unless you had several hundred hours flying multi engine aircraft jumping into a P-38 (or any other high performance multi-engine aircraft) with minimal multi time is an accident waiting to happen. In any multi engine propeller driven aircraft, the critical training required involves engine out procedures at take off. Except in the combat environment, this was the most dangerous time to have an engine failure and where many of the accidents occurred. Even today, this is a heavily emphasized training element with General Aviation pilots flying multi-engine aircraft.

As I posted on several other occasions, I had a neighbor who flew P-38s and P-51s in Europe. He told me you had to be a great pilot to fly a P-38. A good pilot became a great pilot in the -51. He actually preferred the -38.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 16, 2005)

In Europe the "Man of the Match" can be from the losing side. He is the one that plays the best and makes the most for his team, even if his team ultimately could not play on his success. And that is how it should be. 

Too much emphasis is placed on 1944-1945, in my opinion. What about 1940-1943 over the North African desert. Without the Spitfire air supremacy could have been gained comfortably by the Bf-109F and Fw-190A against what only could have been the Hurricane which was, by then, out-classed by the later German models. This would have had a drastic effect on the desert war because in a region of no cover, air superiority is all the more important. And there was nothing for the Allies that was capable of replacing the Spitfire Mk.V in 1941. 

Was North Africa critical to the entire war effort? I think so. But that in itself is a matter for discussion.


----------



## Erich (Oct 16, 2005)

Jon you are mistaken

The He 219 was already a proven dog with I./NJG 1 having them only in this gruppe of a great nachtjagdgeschwader. So disliked that the other 3 gruppen kept the Bf 110G-4 and a few Ju 88G-6's. What a teprimental bitch she was too with many problems which I have listed in the past. I./NJG 3 was equipped with at least a dozen but were not flown as the crews flew the proven Ju 88G-6. NJGr 10 also flew them operationaly by the best crews, unimpressed were they. Only 12 mossies were knocked down by I./NJG 1 not a very proven track record while at least double that by single engine Bf 109G-6/AS of III./JG 300 and also Kurt Welters Me 262A-1a staffel in NJG 11...........the He 219 was NOT the mosquito catcher as you claim


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 17, 2005)

Agreed pD. I dont believe aircraft should be judged off of there accomplishments but rather there ability and I am sorry the P-51 was nothing more than a long range escort. The Fw-190, P-47, and Spitfire were all more capable fighters and better. Well atleast me and pD seem to understand this.


----------



## JonJGoldberg (Oct 17, 2005)

1stly to all let me say I’ve had an enjoyable weekend due to the exchanges here. Thanks all. Glad I joined.

Not to belittle anyone else’s opinion, honestly, but come on, face facts (or propaganda if you wish). Let’s see, you guys have not ‘latched’ unto what we are talking about, the best fighter aircraft of WW2. Not the best fighter aircraft ‘if…’ of WW2. As I’ve pointed out, all other aircraft mentioned in ‘serious’ competition with the ’51 were indeed produced in number near or above the number of ‘51s produced. I’ve shown you why the ’51 was given the opportunity, which it did not pass nor did it disappoint, over the ’38 ’47, economics. The ‘51s ‘point of judgment’ in WW2 was during the time it served as fighter escort, towards the end of the war, cementing the outcome of the war in Europe. At this task, as admitted by all it was the best. The FW-190’s ‘point of judgment’ during WW2 was ____ where its service cemented the Axis victory over the Allies. May I use your collective arguments against the ’51, and say that had Germany defeated the Allies in this campaign, it would have been because of the likes of the Me-262, not the Fw-190 that turned the tide. I offer this argument as it seems that you (collectively) are enamored by it in regard to the Hurricane (my runner up for 'best WW2 fighter aircraft) vs. Spitfire (not chosen by me) as runner up to the '51 as 'best fighter' aircraft of WW2.

To play fair, with regard to that argument, I will relate directly to the Hurricane vs. Spitfire thing: The Germans thought that building a small number of very high quality tanks would be better than building a large number of capable tanks (as if the Panther was merely capable). They built Tigers, at a cost of as low of 3, or as high as 10 Panthers each. No matter, say three. Big mistake. Big big mistake. If the Brits, conceding that they even could have, had chosen to have Hawker switch to Spit production, the result would have been a disaster. If you don’t give the Brits time to numerically replace the Hurricanes with Spits, you simply can not deploy one aircraft in more than one place at one time, even today, and therefore the Spit would not have been nearly as effective as the Hurricane was, although superior, like the Tiger, the Spit would have been overwhelmed by volume. Doesn’t this make the Hurricane, as the Panther would have been, the weapon with the most impact, the best weapon ‘at that unique time’? If you give the Brits more time to build Spits, you give the Axis more time to build as well, and then we all get entangled in statistical tit-for-tats. During war, time, timing are more precious than money, and not factors that should be considered or dismissed as inconsequential. Had the Allies waited to field the P-47N, how many Me-262s would have been built, how many other ‘wonder toys’ would have been in service, and in what numbers. Man, they built a lot of Salamanders, and V-1s too. Guess a ‘47N might tackle a few of those huh. Bring over the F4U. Come on. Don’t get me wrong, one of my very personal favs. But in Europe, she would have been destroyed by the ‘190, as she would not be fast enough to out run one. Even in the Pacific, since F4Us could not turn too well, acceleration was poor, at least until the -1D, and don’t even go to a roll in one, them gull wings didn’t like that too much, the only way to fly one in combat was fast. Now if she couldn’t out run a ‘190 the European air war was about altitude, speed, rolls and dives... F4Us could dive, but unlike most Japanese fighters, so could a ‘190, oh, and as you all know, a ‘190 can roll.

With regard to the African, for that matter every other very important theater of operation not mentioned, I offer apologies. I mean in no way to minimize any and all contributions made during them. I highlight service of the Hurricane during the BoB, the ’51 in Europe from mid 1944, solely to qualify their achievements. Any inference at ‘minimizing’ other campaigns importance, or roll in the ‘big’ picture was not intended. If you feel as if in any of those other theaters, or times during WW2, a fighter displayed a higher degree of service than those of the ’51, or the Hurricane, during the time frames given for their incredible service, please feel free to anti up…

I believe I have proved that there was no other aircraft that could have replaced either the ’51 or the Hurricane. I believe we agree that due to the success of the Hurricane, England did not surrender, nor was it invaded. We just have a small problem getting past the Spitfire, and to a lesser degree, this, for lack of a better phrase, love of direct performance comparisons. Maybe the Hurricane was not the best one-to-one vs. the Spit. It was victorious, not due to superior volume, or lack of performance as compared to the Spit; it was victorious because of how well it was applied against, and dealt with the ‘109 of the time, and how little the performance edge of the Spit, or the ‘109, its true adversary, at the time, mattered. In that time, during the Battle of Britain, the Hurricane’s ‘point of judgment’, the Hurricane served as the primary fighter, not the rare Spit. The Hurricane was THE supreme fighter aircraft system. A nation relied upon it, not the Spit. The Hurricane did not disappoint. I repeat, at the time Hurricanes may have been able to replace Spits; but at that moment in time, Spits could not replace Hurricanes. I’m in no way minimizing the contribution, or performance of the Spit. It was a factor. It was the clean up hitter, at times simply outnumbered and rescued by Hurricanes at other times; like the Me-262 the Fw-190 in 1945, sort of, kind of.

Erich, thanks! I’ve gotta watch it with you guys… I should have been clearer. He 219A-5/R1. After which the aircraft became the over weight temperamental bitch you describe, except for the He 219a-6. This dedicated Mosquito hunter had impressive stats, I believe, but you may be right as I can’t picture them in my head, and you are absolutely correct, they did serve in NJGr 10, although I do not recall ever reading about NJGr 3. Thanks for the pick up (brutal reminder; kidding), it’s been a while since I’ve thought about this aircraft, I forgot about NJGr 10. I’ll have to dig about the mosquito kills. None the less, I like the aircraft a great deal and feel that if engine allocation priorities were a little more forgiving to the ‘219, weight gains, added crew, and aerodynamic downgrades of later variants would not have made her a temperamental bitch. The 'one of' -7/R6 with 2,500 HP Jumbo 222A/B engines was not temperamental. Only the engine was not available to the 219 for production.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Oct 17, 2005)

The Hurricane wasn't the supreme fighter system. It was merely what Britain had available, in quantity, to fight in its early battles during WW2. The RAF would of much rather equipped its fighter squadrons with Spitfires than Hurricanes, CRO and Beaverbrook be damned. Afterall, Dowding deliberately held back Spitfires from the continent, ensuring that they were available for defence of the home isles.

In the Battle of Britain 18 Spitfire squadrons claimed some 1,167 kills, which was only 477 fewer enemy aircraft than was claimed by slightly more than double their number of Hurricane squadrons. Spitfire squadrons claimed, on average, 62 kills per squadron during the Battle of Britain. Hurricane squadrons claimed, on average, 44 kills per squadron. This makes a Spitfire squadron around 40% more effective than the average Hurricane squadron, claiming an extra 18 aircraft per squadron. 

Undoubtedly the kill numbers are inflated, but this would be true for both types. According to British historian Jon Lake there is some evidence that Hurricane squadrons overclaimed more than Spitfire squadrons, mostly because they were tasked as bomber destroyers. The Spitfire was simply a more efficient aerial fighting machine and the combat results bear that out. With the same engine and prop it was faster at all altitudes, climbed better, dived better and turned better, particularly at high speed. 

The Hurricanes strengths in battle were its tight turning circle, ease of handling and more concentrated cone of fire. It was faster to build, easier to repair and slightly cheaper than the Spitfire. But it was the Spitfire that saw development as the primary fighter type for the RAF, not the Hurricane. 

With the P-51, apart from range and high speed cruise there is little that it could do other fighters couldn't do considerably better. If you look at the performance categories where a fighter is judged against its opponents; speed, roll, climb, dive, zoom climb, firepower, turn, handling, control harmony it often comes up wanting. The Fw-190A serise, 190D serise, Spitfire XIV, Tempest V, P-47D, even the La-7 and Yak-3 even the venerable 109K, all matched or exceeded the P-51 in many performance categories.

You simply can't state that the P-51 was 'the best'. Why was it? In what categories? Was it a better B'n'Z fighter than any of its contemporaries? Was it a better energy fighter, or did it succeed as a turn and burner? You can probably state comprehensively that it was the best single engine long range escort of the war. But as an air superiority fighter, or a point interceptor, or a fighter-bomber or even as a pure dogfighter there are many others that exceeded its capabilities.

Oh, and the P-51 was the highest scoring USAAF fighter type in Europe, not the highest scoring fighter in Europe. The 109, 190 and Spitfire all scored more kills than the Pony.


----------



## evangilder (Oct 17, 2005)

Okay, I have to look at this from another angle. Let's take a look at the top USAAF aces by theater:

PTO
Top five aces:
Richard Bong, P-38, 40 kills
Thomas McGuire, P-38, 38 kills
Charles McDonald, P-38, 27 kills
Gerald Johnson, P-38, 22 kills
Neel Kearby, P-47, 22 kills
You have to get to 9 and 10, Hill and Older to get to any P-51s, and these guys also had kills in the P-40.

ETO
Top 5 aces
Gabby Gabreski, P-47, 28 kills
Robert Johnson, P-47, 27 kills
George Preddy, P-51, 26.8 kills
John Meyer, P-51, 24 kills
Ray Wetmore, P-51, 22.6 kills

MTO
top 5 aces
Lance Wade, Hurricane/Spitfire, 23 kills
John Voll, P-51, 21 kills
Herky Green, P-47, 18 kills
Sully Varnell, P-51, 17 kills
Sam Brown, P-51, 15 kills

If the P-51 was "clearly" the best definitive fighter, how come the top American ace of any theater was not flying the P-51?? I like the P-51, but I would not consider it the best fighter of WWII. For long range escort, it was good, but as an air superiority fighter I would rank it fair.


----------



## Erich (Oct 17, 2005)

Jon concerning the He 219 for combat operations :

Only the A-0 and A-2 were operational. The A-5 through A-7 did not exist except as test pieces. all captioning of existing photos with operational units have been incorrect and this according to losses reports of NJGr 10 and I./NJG 1 and the couple destined for II./NJG 1. The A-6 was a great idea on paper but never built. I./NJG 1 reduced the armament for lightness/more speed and manuverability and besides it was not needed as the four 2cm weapons had already proved to be a great combination in night fighting. Only with Kommando Welter and the Me 262's did the Mk 108 stay as standard but too much back flash when firing on RAF a/c.

I have been working with a Dutch author who is in process of writing the I./NJG 1's history and he has some great enlightening information once it is prepared and on the bookshelves from the pilots/crewmen and ground techs...............there are at least 2 He 219A's that flew ops in NJGr 10 as I have a copy of Bordfünker and RK winner Johannes Richters flugbuch indicating the units ~ a/c flown. My first reaction had been that the unit tested them only and from the pics I have in my data base showing the broken backs of two a/c off the tramacs. Indeed the NJG testing and combat unit was not real impressed with the Uhu but they did not seem impressed with any of the Luftwaffes twin enigne arsenal anyway.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 17, 2005)

Had the Spitfire been the sole interceptor of the Battle of Britain it would have dealt with the Luftwaffe more efficiently that the Hurricane. Let's just say that the Spitfire would have been in lesser numbers than the combination of the Hurricane and Spitfire. They both began life in 1936 and were put into production not so soon after. 

In reality, what was it? Thirty-two Hurricane squadrons and nineteen Spitfire squadrons? That's fifty-one squadrons. Let's just say if only the Spitfire had been built from 1937 onwards there were 45 squadrons, the Spitfire was a more efficient killing machine and could make up the loss in squadron strength. Hell, who's to say the RAF wouldn't send over four Spitfire squadrons (instead of Hurricane squadrons) to France which would cause more damage? And the Luftwaffe would have been no bigger ...they were producing planes at a leisurely rate, as a opposed to the war rate of Great Britain. 

If we're being specific of theatre. What could have replaced the Zero in 1941 for the Pacific? What could have replaced the La-7 on the Eastern Front? What could have replaced the Spitfire in Africa? What could have replaced the Fw-190A in 1942, France? 

I think we're all agreed that the P-51 was a remarkable machine and was probably the best escort fighter of the war from an economic point of view. It was above average and cheap. 

And I think you're being a bit excessive with the Panther versus Tiger production. The Panther was still complicated and the most accepted figure is 2:1, but I will give 3:1. Ten for one, never use, it's over the top.


----------



## helmitsmit (Oct 17, 2005)

In combat the early Spitfires weren't a steady gun platform that is also why the Hurricane shot down more planes. It was easy to repair it could take more battle damage it was easier to fly takeoff and landing wise. It's gun were more concentrated. So maybe the spitfire would have struggled to stop the germans


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 17, 2005)

It shot down more planes because:
a) It was tougher, and so went after the bombers, and there are more bombers than fighters
b) There were more of them.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 17, 2005)

The reason it shot down more overall was the simple fact that there were more Hurricanes than there were Spitfires. 

The Spitfires gun issue wasn't actually an issue. The Spitfire was sent after enemy fighters which were much more agile than bombers, the accuracy of the Spitfire's weapons was obviously not a problem. 

The strength of the Hurricane saved a lot of pilots from death but it would not affect the ability of the Spitfire to bring down enemy bombers. After all, the Spitfire was first and foremost an interceptor from design. 

Jabberwocky provided statistics that show the Spitfire on a squadron to squadron basis was a more successful plane against the enemy.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Oct 17, 2005)

Spitfire Squadrons in the Battle of Britain

No 19 Sqn 
No 41 Sqn
No 54 Sqn
No 64 Sqn
No 65 Sqn
No 66 Sqn
No 72 Sqn
No 74 Sqn
No 92 Sqn
No 152 Sqn
No 222 Sqn
No 266 Sqn
No 602 Sqn
No 603 Sqn
No 610 Sqn
No 611 Sqn
No 612 Sqn
No. 421 Flight

Total of 17 squadrons and 1 flight

Hurricane Squadrons in the Battle of Britain:

No 1 Sqn
No 3 Sqn
No 17 Sqn
No 32 Sqn
No 43 Sqn
No 46 Sqn
No 56 Sqn
No 73 Sqn
No 79 Sqn
No 85 Sqn
No 87 Sqn
No 111 Sqn
No 145 Sqn
No 151 Sqn 
No 213 Sqn
No 229 Sqn
No 232 Sqn
No 234 Sqn
No 238 Sqn
No 242 Sqn
No 245 Sqn
No 249 Sqn
No 253 Sqn
No 257 Sqn
No 263 Sqn
No 302 Sqn
No 303 Sqn
No 310 Sqn
No 312 Sqn
No 501 Sqn
No 504 Sqn
No 601 Sqn
No 605 Sqn
No 607 Sqn
No 615 Sqn
No 1 (RACF) Sqn
No 421 Flight 
No 422 flight

Total of 36 squadrons and 2 flights.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 17, 2005)

I've seen loads of different numbers ...but since you provided the actual squadrons ..it seems much more believable.


----------



## helmitsmit (Oct 18, 2005)

If supermarine were as big the hawker company at that time it could have produced the spitfire quicker because there were problems with the initial production.

It was more complicated than the Hurricane. 
The other thing is that without the Hurricane the R.A.F would have made more companies produce more spitfires quicker. Or they would have used the Miles M.20.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 19, 2005)

the BoB was pretty much over by the time the M.20 was really ready........


----------



## JonJGoldberg (Oct 22, 2005)

…Sorry fellows, during the week, I usually don’t have time to ‘play’. I forgot to thank FLYBOY for his response, thanks. Good stuff on LeVier. He had his own special ‘one-of’ P-38, that he used during his tour, I saw a picture once or twice, extended greenhouse, for the guest pilots, and some ‘stuff’ on the wings...

Let’s see what I missed, from my last post…

Jabberwocky: 
A) “The Hurricane wasn't the supreme fighter system. It was merely what Britain had available, in quantity, to fight in its early battles during WW2.”
My Reply >>>
‘Interceptor Monoplane’ trials in 1936 (in March of the same year, Supermarine Model 300, the Spit flew) showed that revisions to the canopy, landing gear, control layout were all that were needed in order for the Hurricane, as it was to be known, to be accepted, and produced. June ’36 600 were ordered (only 310 Spits were ordered), the name ‘Hurricane’ was given. No.111 squadron was equipped by the end of ’37, and No.3, No.56 by the end of ’38 (Spits were 1st equipping No.19 squadron in mid 1938). The speed of delivery happened due to Hawker’s confidence of their ‘new’ design; the Hawker Siddeley board issuing a directive, before any orders were secured, to ‘tool up’ to build 1,000 Hurricanes at Kingston, a NEW FACTORY at Langley (Supermarine doing no such thing, until the start of hostilities).

B) “In the Battle of Britain 18 Spitfire squadrons claimed some 1,167 kills, which was only 477 fewer enemy aircraft than was claimed by slightly more than double their number of Hurricane squadrons… This makes a Spitfire squadron around 40% more effective than the average Hurricane squadron, claiming an extra 18 aircraft per squadron.” 
My Reply >>>
According to the records at my disposal, and ‘paraphrased’ (I just love stats); 1715 Hurricanes served during the BoB, outnumbering the combined total of all other aircraft that served in the BoB. British aircraft production numbers by 7 August 1940 account that no fewer than 2,309 Hurricanes had been delivered; compared with 1,383 Spitfires, equipping 32 squadrons, compared with 18.5 Spitfire squadrons. The Hurricane was markedly inferior in terms of speed and climb. However, the Hurricane was a robust, maneuverable aircraft capable of sustaining fearsome combat damage before write-off; and unlike the Spitfire, it was a wholly operational, go-anywhere do-anything fighter by July 1940. It is estimated that Hurricane pilots were credited with four-fifths of all enemy aircraft destroyed in the period July-October 1940.Now something’s gotta be out-of-wack with somebody’s numbers… 
The 1167 kills from Spits, added to the 1644 you say the Hurricane pilots deserve, we get 2811. Total Aircraft losses for the Battle of Britain, between July 10 and October 31 1940: Luftwaffe losses 1,887, of which 873 were fighters (RAF lost 1,023 fighter aircraft to all causes). Further, review the Brits daily reports (available at http://www.raf.mod.uk/bob1940/index.html) you will find the daily strength of Spits averaged 225 to 260, and Hurricanes 350 to 410.This equates to a 35/64 split of Spits to Hurries, on average (worst case days being 1/3 Spit to Hurricane) does not account for the credit given the Hurricanes of 80% of all downed aircraft (1/4 Spit to Hurricane, best case, assuming AA fire accounted for 0 aircraft; Don’t you love stats?).

C)” With the P-51, apart from range and high speed cruise there is little that it could do other fighters couldn't do considerably better. If you look at the performance categories where a fighter is judged against its opponents; speed, roll, climb, dive, zoom climb, firepower, turn, handling, control harmony it often comes up wanting. The Fw-190A serise, 190D serise, Spitfire XIV, Tempest V, P-47D, even the La-7 and Yak-3 even the venerable 109K, all matched or exceeded the P-51 in many performance categories.” 
My Reply >>>
According to the data I posted, most other American fighters offered equal or better performance in any category or set of categories listed, save one; Money. This allowed a government, not desperate for its own survival, to acquire, or produce enough of these things, quickly enough, and apply them in manners to prevent an enemy’s effective response. If the enemy is not able to respond, well, then you are the best. The Fw-190 was not able to respond to the introduction of the ‘Pony’.

D) Lastly Jabberwocky posted some Hurricane Squadron tables. 
My Reply >>>
OK. And…

evangilder:
A) “Okay, I have to look at this from another angle. Let's take a look at the top USAAF aces by theater: PTO 
Top five aces: 
Richard Bong, P-38, 40 kills… 
You have to get to 9 and 10, Hill and Older to get to any P-51s, and these guys also had kills in the P-40…”
My Reply >>>
We are not talking about where the ’51 had at best, I agree adequate service. I think we are trying to establish the best fighter of the war, not a theater, for one ‘approach’ pun intended. As for another, I don’t think there are any F-6Fs nor Ki-84 ‘Frank’ on the ETO sheet, nor will you find ‘Whirlwind’, ‘Tempest’ nor FW-190 stats for the PTO. The ’38 has more Japanese aircraft to its credit than European. The ‘47s did well, but offered little a ’38, or F4U didn’t, couldn’t... Where are we going with this?

B) “…If the P-51 was "clearly" the best definitive fighter, how come the top American ace of any theater was not flying the P-51?? I like the P-51, but I would not consider it the best fighter of WWII. For long range escort, it was good, but as an air superiority fighter I would rank it fair.” 
My Reply >>>
In this argument, you use the mount of the pilot, saying that the ’51 appears lower in the rankings than does the appearance of other types. Your point seems valid, except, well; the ’51 was introduced later than the other types, when there were more pilots, on both sides, in Europe anyway, but many, many more Allied pilots. The Axis gained less so proportionately. So a ’51 pilot, a new pilot at that (not to say that the Axis pilots weren’t green), would have more competition, proportionately, than those flying other types, hence better survival rates, but less time to acquire their ‘kills’, if the pilot’s only mount was the ‘pony’. I may therefore argue that if any made the list at all, it serves as cement to my points. But that would be silly. Fact is, the ‘51 did clear the sky. Admittedly it wasn’t the only reason. …But wow, what a difference the ’51 made. I think what you and most others are doing is romancing the performance stats, as opposed to what happened in fact. Although battles in the air are usually visualized as a one-on-one dance they are not. Two F4Fs working as a team were no doubt more effective than two independently acting Zeros. Most (certainly not all) confrontations between the types resulted in stalemate, or victories to the Wildcat pilots, as evidenced by history. Teamwork the effects of the proper application of tactics to overcome performance shortfalls, or the opening of a factory purely on the belief that the ‘product’ will be sold are some of the ‘human’ factors not contained within the performance sheets (stats), and mostly forgotten, no matter the relevance, during the romance of their study.

plan_D:
A) “…Let's just say if only the Spitfire had been built from 1937 onwards there were 45 squadrons, the Spitfire was a more efficient killing machine and could make up the loss in squadron strength. Hell, who's to say the RAF wouldn't send over four Spitfire squadrons (instead of Hurricane squadrons) to France which would cause more damage? And the Luftwaffe would have been no bigger ...they were producing planes at a leisurely rate, as a opposed to the war rate of Great Britain.” 
My Reply >>>
Let’s just say… Ok I’ll play. The soul reason for the number of Hurricanes built, and their cadence of delivery being as rapid as it was, was due to, as mentioned above, Hawker’s confidence of their ‘new’ design leading to the Hawker Siddeley board to issue an order to ‘tool up’ to build 1,000 at Kingston, build a NEW FACTORY at Langley, before any order for the new aircraft was placed. Supermarine had no such faith, as they missed the ‘Interceptor Monoplane’ trials, requiring the Brits to draft a specification specifically to justify the Spits existence, and purchase, other than it’s remarkable, for the time, performance. Their construction delivery cadence was ‘average’ for the time. Anyway, point being, the Human factors involved would not allow your theoretical numbers of Spits to exist, as telling Hawker to switch from Hurricanes to Spits would have involved, I believe history confirms, a much bigger investment than just telling them to do so. So, following the switch, under the best of circumstances, keeping the time-line intact as to not add yet another factor, Hawker delivers would be at best, 90% of Supermarine’s 1383, by August 1940. I use this date because the planes had to be made before the BoB in order to have served in the BoB. I discount Hawkers delivery of Spits against Supermarines delivery, instead of their production of Hurricanes, because I believe what I wrote above, and therefore I believe the Langley factory would not have opened when it did, and additionally Hawker would need to retool retrain workers. Enough of that tangent; In order for there to have been 1715 Hurricanes to take part in the BoB, the target number of our replacement Spits, Hawker had to build by August 1940, 2,309. The New Hawker will build 1245 Spits instead. Keeping the proportions intact (giving an edge to the Spit, as for ‘NOW’ only, I will concede a better attrition rate for the Spit) this will yield say 75% of the 1300 Spits built, leaving 975 Spits in service for the BoB (ruff numbers). Now you might say that this 740 (ruff numbers) less Spits than Hurries is a number that fits your theory. But let’s take another look at those ‘awful’ specs. On any given day, those 1383 Spits yielded say 260 aircraft in service, or 20% (ruff number). The 1715 Hurricanes yielded lets say 375, or 22% (ruff number). So we are really replacing 375 easier to maintain, keep flying despite their inferior performance Hurricanes, on any given day, with 195 magnificently performing Spits. Now you’re the British commander faced with intercepting German flights coming at you, except the 180 aircraft you had in the air, flying 24 Hr top cover, as most of your pilots aircraft are on the ground are being serviced from the last go-round could not get to altitude/destination in time, those 180 aircraft are simply not there. …But hey, at least the ones that remain, on the ground being serviced, the new ones being built in the surviving factories in this scenario, are all magnificently performing Spits… As for production rates, it wasn’t until 1940 that British production surpassed that of Germany. 1939 end of year aircraft production totals for Germany (8295) were slightly higher than those of Britain (7940). So, at the time, a delay, as if the Brits could have delayed the BoB, to increase Spit numbers would not serve the Brits, on paper; the weather, and many other incalculable human factors would enter if this tangent were explored further.

B) “If we're being specific of theatre….” 
My Reply >>>
We (I) are (am) not.

C) “I think we're all agreed that the P-51 was a remarkable machine and was probably the best escort fighter of the war from an economic point of view. It was above average and cheap. ….” 
My Reply >>>
…Hey plan_D, thanks for the gumball! No really at least it’s a start.

D) “And I think you're being a bit excessive with the Panther versus Tiger production. The Panther was still complicated and the most accepted figure is 2:1, but I will give 3:1. Ten for one, never use, it's over the top.” 
My Reply >>>
I was ‘carried away’ by the moment. But you got the point?! … I think your figure is low, I’ll look into it for a goof.

helmitsmit cheddar cheese:
My Reply >>>
I’m not going to quote you; I thank you for your contributions. May I add that the Hurricane was the interceptor of choice; Spits being dispatched when Hurricanes could not, or were unable to reach the objective first, or whenever the interception exploited the Spits performance advantages, as opposed to its short-comings, relative to the Hurricane? …Thanks.


----------



## JonJGoldberg (Oct 22, 2005)

...Correction to the site address containing the RAFs BoB daily reports. You will find them here: http://www.raf.mod.uk/bob1940/calendar.html


----------



## evangilder (Oct 22, 2005)

JonJGoldberg said:


> evangilder:
> A) “Okay, I have to look at this from another angle. Let's take a look at the top USAAF aces by theater: PTO
> Top five aces:
> Richard Bong, P-38, 40 kills…
> ...


I was showing aces _per theater_ to show each operational area and what aircraft had the top aces. I could have made it for the whole war, but I broke it down for more info. Where are you going with your reply?



JonJGoldberg said:


> B) “…If the P-51 was "clearly" the best definitive fighter, how come the top American ace of any theater was not flying the P-51?? I like the P-51, but I would not consider it the best fighter of WWII. For long range escort, it was good, but as an air superiority fighter I would rank it fair.”
> My Reply >>>
> In this argument, you use the mount of the pilot, saying that the ’51 appears lower in the rankings than does the appearance of other types. Your point seems valid, except, well; the ’51 was introduced later than the other types, when there were more pilots, on both sides, in Europe anyway, but many, many more Allied pilots. The Axis gained less so proportionately. So a ’51 pilot, a new pilot at that (not to say that the Axis pilots weren’t green), would have more competition, proportionately, than those flying other types, hence better survival rates, but less time to acquire their ‘kills’, if the pilot’s only mount was the ‘pony’. I may therefore argue that if any made the list at all, it serves as cement to my points. But that would be silly. Fact is, the ‘51 did clear the sky. Admittedly it wasn’t the only reason. …But wow, what a difference the ’51 made. I think what you and most others are doing is romancing the performance stats, as opposed to what happened in fact. Although battles in the air are usually visualized as a one-on-one dance they are not. Two F4Fs working as a team were no doubt more effective than two independently acting Zeros. Most (certainly not all) confrontations between the types resulted in stalemate, or victories to the Wildcat pilots, as evidenced by history. Teamwork the effects of the proper application of tactics to overcome performance shortfalls, or the opening of a factory purely on the belief that the ‘product’ will be sold are some of the ‘human’ factors not contained within the performance sheets (stats), and mostly forgotten, no matter the relevance, during the romance of their study.



Firstly, the only reason the P-51 "cleared the sky" was because the outnumbered the enemy. They are a good plane, but not a great plane. Your statement _I think what you and most others are doing is romancing the performance stats, as opposed to what happened in fact._ proves that you have NO idea where I get my info. Spend a little time reading on this site to find out. I am not going to hand it to you after a comment like that. If the most others of that comment are meant for folks here, again, you better read up on them as well.

I am quite aware of how battles were conducted and it was rarely, if ever just one on one. Again, you need to read a bit more on this site before you make comments like that one, as most of us here have done a fair bit of reading on this subject as well as talk to the actual people who flew these planes. Do not make assumptions here that we know nothing. I don't give a rat's ass about the "romantic" hollywood bullcrap. I am only interested in facts. 

Look at both sides of the war and talk with some of the vets. Again, I like the Mustang, but I would never consider it the best fighter of the war. It just wasn't the best. I am sure you will find others agree, all of which are well informed.


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 22, 2005)

I think his argument was the P51's in the Pacific arrived so late in the war, that there wasn't many Japanese planes to shoot at. In the ETO, the P51's were not in force untill Q2 of 1944, in which the Luftwaffee had begun its relative decline againt the Allies. While more and more Mustangs were being deployed, fewer and fewer German fighters were taking flight. Think about it for Q4 of 1944. A German pilot taking off on a sortie would be guarenteed to find an American plane somewhere. The American P51 pilot would be among several hundred fighters, MAYBE in the area where a smaller number of German fighters are operating, on the rare day they did come up to fight.

It was good for the bombers, but bad for the fighter pilots who wanted to add to their score.

Ive always figured that the best fighter in the war is the one that rated high in several catagories. The P51 wasnt the best in all, but was good in enough catagories to overall be the best.


----------



## wmaxt (Oct 22, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> I think his argument was the P51's in the Pacific arrived so late in the war, that there wasn't many Japanese planes to shoot at. In the ETO, the P51's were not in force untill Q2 of 1944, in which the Luftwaffee had begun its relative decline againt the Allies. While more and more Mustangs were being deployed, fewer and fewer German fighters were taking flight. Think about it for Q4 of 1944. A German pilot taking off on a sortie would be guarenteed to find an American plane somewhere. The American P51 pilot would be among several hundred fighters, MAYBE in the area where a smaller number of German fighters are operating, on the rare day they did come up to fight.
> 
> It was good for the bombers, but bad for the fighter pilots who wanted to add to their score.
> 
> Ive always figured that the best fighter in the war is the one that rated high in several catagories. The P51 wasnt the best in all, but was good in enough catagories to overall be the best.



The P-51 is a 90% fighter, period. 
1. The performance of the Mustang was so average that it had a 3 month lapse in production prior to the Merlin and did not exceed P-38 production until March' 44.
2. Even as an escort it wasn't the best, just able to fly further than other aircraft into Germany (the 8th limited the drop tank size for the P-38s to keep it that way. 
3. Its dominance, numbers wise in the ETO was not due to its performance according to Doolittle who made the decision to go with the P-51. 
4. Performance wise the P-38L was better in virtualy every catagory, the one place it didn't was a second source when it was needed. 
5. The P-51 AAF 'advocate' had a father in congress. 
6. Timing favorable to the AAF brass to get them out of the "Self Escort" trap they had staked the future of America on.
7. The P-38 was the requested preference everywhere else in the world.

The P-51 was cheap, adequate, and numerous, It also got the press thats all.

The YIPPEE P-38 was a standard J model P-38. It was P-38 #5,000 and painted red, no modifications were made to this aircraft.

wmaxt


----------



## JonJGoldberg (Oct 23, 2005)

Hello again…,
Wow looks like I rustled some feathers… 

evangilder; you seem to have taken a reply of mine as a personal attack. It wasn’t meant that way. To answer you:

In a posting to DerAdlerIstGelandet, you may find below within item 6 to Wmaxt, I’ve already addressed the point you are trying to make, so I interpreted your posting this way; “Look, the ’51 wasn’t great, it’s on the Ace lists, and when its there, other aircraft are mentioned. These other planes did the ‘fighter’ thing better than the P-51, look at when, how many times they are mentioned. Now look at when and how many times you see the ’51.” I even wrote that I didn’t completely understand your point by asking “Where are we going with this?” But you didn’t understand me either. So, please allow me to rephrase, as I see your point a little clearer, now, can make mine more easily understood.

The Me-262 was a great (my opinion) plane, when introduced. Performance far better, in most respects that a German pilot at the time, might consider important (OK it was no aerobat, but you could step on the gas, { this type got gas} and leave, had serious firepower {although slow firing rate}, other aircraft to cover your butt while taking off landing {not that every other plane ever built couldn’t use this ‘help’, the Me-262 though has this rep.}), than most other fighters he might have happened to qualify for, or be in the circumstance to fly. Yet this aircraft, as well as, for example, the Ta-152 will be as rare if not rarer to find on the German Ace list as the P-51 on the American Ace lists. To further establish my point, you will not find many Ki-84s on the Japanese Ace lists, nor Tempest fighters on the British, or Mc-205Vs on the Italian lists. I believe, though I’m not 1000% sure, your argument would lead us to the Me-109, as the mount of the most Aces of the war. It was produced in the most numbers, served the longest, and was perhaps the most ‘mainstream’ or common representation of ‘a’ fighter aircraft of the WW2, yet I do not believe this aircraft was ‘the’ fighter of the war, but I’ll listen further…

With regard to there being more Ponys in the sky than “the enemy” that is not so. There were more Allied aircraft in the sky, some of them being P-51s. Production numbers for the P-51 (15,576 with some of that number being built after the war) are less than those of the Me-109 (G-type production alone was about 23,000, of which 14,000 were built in ’44 alone {Now I’ll bet there are more ‘51s on the Ace lists than these 14,000 ‘109Gs}), Fw-190 (19,424). As for ‘friendly’ adversaries to the ‘best fighter crown’ the Spit and Jug come to mind as being built in greater numbers than the Pony. Anyway, if there were more Allied fighters in the sky, than Axis fighters, was this not a direct result of them being ‘taken out’? After all, Germany didn’t build this many planes to leave them sit. They did field them, some of them, most of them, pilot shortage, gas shortage not withstanding; didn’t they?

With regard to the ‘romancing the stats’ stuff: What else can it be? Not in the “Hollywood” sense, but in the stance, in general, that I see in our ‘friendly’ exchanges. For example, I previously wrote a reply with regard to numbers of fighter aircraft produced and the appointment of the P-51 as best fighter ‘by volume’ in an exchange with Lesofprimus. Similarly, you know the numbers of ‘51s made, so why is it that you rebut my ‘bantering’ with, “Firstly, the only reason the P-51 "cleared the sky" was because the(y) outnumbered the enemy.” …But I’ll answer you, as this is a ‘friendly’ exchange, I’m in no way personally attacking you; who am I, been a member for less than 2 weeks… 
The ’51, by itself, did NOT outnumber Me-109s, nor FW-190s by type, much less combined, unless they were destroyed by other means before the ’51 got there. Well even if that were so, with 14,000 fresh Me-109s produced in ’44 alone, this single type of German aircraft, fighter aircraft too boot, would have, should have been able to make an appearance in greater number than ‘51s (not the entire Allied air forces) on any given day.

Related banter…
•	The ’51 was able to fly 6 hours, with time and ability to be competitive in aerial combat. What would the ‘51s performance been had it been designed to fight locally, as the Fw-190, or the Spit. Without say the internal volume and weight required to fit lets go for the aft fuel tank or better yet, designed with a 500 mile rage on internal tanks.
•	If the Fw-190D were modified to serve a mission envelope similar to the Mustang’s, how would its performance have fared?
•	Why hasn’t the Martin Baker’s M.B.5 been nominated? 1st flown May 23, 1944, with a top speed of 460 MPH, this aircraft failed to secure a contract. However, to all that logged flight time in her, she was the best handling aircraft they had flown. Till this day, whenever I find information about this plane I read about how well it was received by its test guest pilots.
•	Why do I not see the Ki-84 anywhere? Although at 388 mph top speed it was slower than a ’51, or ’47 but competitive with the CAT, man this toy had ‘moves’. If bombing (here we go again) hadn’t caused production quality issues Allied fighter pilots let a good pilot escape harm every now then to mount this thing… (You see how easily we all ‘romance’ the stats)
More seriously, maybe we can ‘define’ best fighter aircraft of WW2 a bit more clearly, for individuals as myself (‘clearly’ a pain in the…). I’d like to know how many of them had to be built; How many production units constitute a ‘fair production maximum’; during what time frame; Did they have to be operational; is a mock up OK, or perhaps just paper; How many theaters did they have to operate within; for how long; what is the earliest date to be considered; the latest date; speaking of dates (not blond, or brunette), would that be 1st flight, or in field… 

syscom3; Thanks for the help.

Wmaxt:
“The P-51 is a 90% fighter, period.”
My Reply >>>
You are entitled. I suppose you derive that from what you go on further to point out. Additionally, why must you, and others berate, or trample the ’51 in order to bring the aircraft you’d prefer I’d choose praise. I have not done that, not even once.

“1. The performance of the Mustang was so average that it had a 3 month lapse in production prior to the Merlin and did not exceed P-38 production until March' 44.” 
My Reply >>>
You mean Apache, right. As to it’s ‘average’ performance, as compared to a fighter maybe, but not as compared to other purpose built mud fighters (attack aircraft), it’s intended roll. Even then its dive low altitude performance was exceptional. If you mean the P-51A, well OK I loose. It was in my opinion, not such a good aircraft. Oh well, I won’t mention those, what were they, P-322s, outside this forum anyways. Lots of Aces flew those ‘Fork Tailed Devils’ too huh. Every ‘family’ has at least one of those. As for the production lapse, 3-months to re-tool and open a new plant is not bad. As to the production number, cadence as compared to an aircraft which started production in mid 1940, I don’t understand. That a full two years before the A-36A.

“2. Even as an escort it wasn't the best, just able to fly further than other aircraft into Germany (the 8th limited the drop tank size for the P-38s to keep it that way.” 
My Reply >>>
I’m going to go backwards here… As I’ve posted, the ’38 was experiencing engine service problems in Europe it was not experiencing in other theaters. Drop tank and ordence size was limited due to those engine problems. Being able to fly long distances, enguage the enemy, fly a long distance home, if you were an Allied fighter in Europe, was the ticket to the ‘Ball’. So, if you are able to fly further, your in; if not you out. Not my rule.

“3. Its dominance, numbers wise in the ETO was not due to its performance according to Doolittle who made the decision to go with the P-51.” 
My Reply >>>
That’s not entirely true. As I’ve posted, the Mustang was, OK, cheap. And it preformed. So Doolittle considered Henry Fords approach. Give every pilot a Pony, and at least they’ll have a chance to dance at the ‘Ball’. We’ll keep the ‘38s the Jugs if this thing don’t pan out, but pound for dollar, the Pony is the best choice. The preceding is in no way a Doolittle quote, simply my interpretation of the Doolittle decision.

“4. Performance wise the P-38L was better in virtualy every catagory, the one place it didn't was a second source when it was needed.” 
My Reply >>>
Huh, I don’t understand…

“5. The P-51 AAF 'advocate' had a father in congress.” 
My Reply >>>
Lots of scandals during the war; It’s an American tradition. Anyway, I recognize, and have written about what doesn’t appear in the specs, and how much what I call ‘human’ factors matter in the big picture. But ‘circumstance’ is circumstance. Even if the Mustang was chosen for _____ singularly due the ‘51’s advocate’s father being in Congress, it happened that way. Alas, however, here too, I do not really know what you mean.

“6. Timing favorable to the AAF brass to get them out of the "Self Escort" trap they had staked the future of America on.” 
My Reply >>>
There is a saying fitting this occasion, not my own. “In love war timing is everything.” As I’ve posted, way before, reletive to my tenure evangilder posted his comments, … DerAdlerIstGelandet,
I see we must agree to disagree. I feel the ’51 was a good fighter escort. So good at being an escort it was the single best fighter of WW2. I agree, it may not have been as capable at anything else. But what the Allies needed, more than any other ‘fighter type’ in order to see their strategies succeed, was a proper fighter escort. They didn’t need an aerobat, or multi-roll fighter, as badly as an escort. Until the Mustang, potential could be found in the ‘38, and ’47, but both were expensive, thirsty aircraft. The ’47 was less expensive thirsty than the ’38, and on the ‘scene’ before the ’51 in RR/Packard duds, was therefore built in the greatest number. Only a handful of the 8ths pilots retained the ’47 when offered. I believe only one squad refused to switch to ‘51s. ‘47s ‘38s can credit more ‘top’ aces than ‘51s. But it could also be argued that the ’51 came later, Americans were rotating pilots more frequently then. I hate stats.

“7. The P-38 was the requested preference everywhere else in the world.” 
My Reply >>>
From when to when; by whom? Doesn’t everyone have a ‘request’ story? During mission ‘X’, plane ‘Y’ was chosen to… Yes, I admit the Yamamoto story is the best, but dare I mention that ‘romance’ thing… nah, rather, that true Yamamoto story hardly constitutes… all over the world. 

“The P-51 was cheap, adequate, and numerous, It also got the press thats all.” 
My Reply >>>
…As I’ve posted… There was no better fighter aircraft package than P-51, especially as applied by the 8th Air Force. No other aircraft could equal the P-51s knock out performance combination of power in the air, low cost to the nation’s wallets that flew her. It was cost effective, it was cheaper to develop, each copy was cheaper to build, and each mission cheaper to finance, as it needed less gas for instance, than its friendly rivals, the ’38, or ‘47. Built in large numbers, the ’51 was trainable, serviceable, and able to meet adversaries on equal or better footing, most of the time. Available, expendable yet indispensable, no other single WW2 fighter affected the ‘big’ picture of that conflict in a more significant way, with exception, possibly, given to the Hurricane. As for the other rolls, no aircraft does everything. The P-51 was not designed at all to be a defensive fighter, no variant was constructed to deal with bomber formations, although there was a ‘mud warrior’ variant. In modern terms it would be an interceptor, as the F-104. But unlike the F-104 or the Fw-190, bombers were not the ‘favored food’; the ’51 was designed to ‘deal with’ fighters. This it did, did well, so well it bettered any other fighter aircraft at doing it’s job during WW2 (…and it looked good doing it). It was better at defeating Fw-190s than the Fw-190 was at defeating bombers. It was better at defeating Me-109s than Me109s were at defeating bombers. Part of the reason the 190s 109s suffered bad or no gas, and or the shortage of supplies and or skilled pilots is because of the ‘51’s contribution. The 190s 109s deserve no handicap due to this ‘hardship’. Their hardships affirm, in my opinion, their inability to ‘handle’ their jobs/circumstance effectively.


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 23, 2005)

Dude, ur forgetting the fact that alot/most of the fighter squadrons and groups transistioned into the P-51 by wars end, and that even though the Bf-109 was produced in such numbers, there wasnt the fuel or manpower to put aloft as many kites as the Allies and their packs of P-51s...

Quite simply, there would be 8x -109s intercepting a bomber group over Brest, and they'd be bounced by 25x P-51s from altitude......

U could have 25 Hurricanes bounce 8 109's and still manage to down half of the interceptors...

And no one here is saying the Mustang wasnt a hell of a plane....


----------



## JonJGoldberg (Oct 23, 2005)

lesofprimus, Sir, for the umteenth time... As posted directly above your post... so I'm not forgetting... "...Part of the reason the 190s 109s suffered bad or no gas, and or the shortage of supplies and or skilled pilots is because of the ‘51’s contribution. The 190s 109s deserve no handicap due to this ‘hardship’. Their hardships affirm, in my opinion, their inability to ‘handle’ their jobs/circumstance effectively. "


----------



## JonJGoldberg (Oct 23, 2005)

...if your implying that the 8ths fighter missions were easy, my my this is not the site I thought it was. Lots of deaths during this easily manageable scenario you paint.

You know it just dawned on me... If you think that Germany, while losing the war figured, hey, lets build 14,000 109s for fun, was the reality, I'm wasting my time here.

Can someone help me out here?


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 23, 2005)

It aint about hardships pal, its a simple fact of #'s.... If the Germans were able to field an equal number of Fw-190's as the P-51's, there wouldnt be all this talk...

The P-51 was an escort fighter, and proved itself as the best in that catagory, one of the factors contributing to this is the numbers in which they were sortied....

Keep on making huge posts.... It doesnt change the fact that there were better fighters in the air than ur beloved Mustang.... It all comes down to "Your" definition of what is best... 

My definition of "The Best" is quite similar to 75% of this board... Ur in the 25% that over-analyze a planes statistics and look past the air to air combat facts, and thats just fine and dandy...

But dont sit there and try and convince the un-impressed with ur Mustang.... It aint gonna wash.... Not here....

U dont actually think this is the first time we have gone over "The Best" here, do u??? This has be hashed and rehashed....

And ur last statement,


> Their hardships affirm, in my opinion, their inability to ‘handle’ their jobs/circumstance effectively. "


is a complete joke....


----------



## JonJGoldberg (Oct 23, 2005)

lesofprimus, once again, as posted right above... "More seriously, maybe we can ‘define’ best fighter aircraft of WW2 a bit more clearly, for individuals as myself (‘clearly’ a pain in the…). I’d like to know how many of them had to be built; How many production units constitute a ‘fair production maximum’; during what time frame; Did they have to be operational; is a mock up OK, or perhaps just paper; How many theaters did they have to operate within; for how long; what is the earliest date to be considered; the latest date; speaking of dates (not blond, or brunette), would that be 1st flight, or in field… "

Anyway, thanks for yor thoughtful insite. As for the joke part, your inability to respond past that of one attending grade school is waht is funny to me. I know, as thats the level of education I attained. However, I grew past that.


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 23, 2005)

> ...if your implying that the 8ths fighter missions were easy


Are u for real??? U know, for a New Yoker, ur giving me a bad rap.... There were no easy fighter missions..... But a fact is a fact.... When u go up with 20 of ur buddies, and 4 Fw-190's show up to tackle u, u have alot better chance of surviving the engagement than those poor Luftwaffe boys, who pretty much knew they were going to die.... Sure sounds to me like ur implying the Luftwaffe had it reaaal easy in the skies over Germany....




> I'm wasting my time here.





> my my this is not the site I thought it was.





> Can someone help me out here?


Yea I can.... The exit door is on ur right... Dont let it kick u in the ass on the way out....


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 23, 2005)

> As for the joke part, your inability to respond past that of one attending grade school is waht is funny to me.


U know, Im the last person here u want to get into a pissing contest with pal.... U shoulda done ur homework and read some of the old posts...

As for not reading ur post, its all crap and blah blah blah... Pump that sunshine up some other twats ass....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 23, 2005)

and we've tried to define the best fighter before, it all comes down to what you loook for in a fighter, but we're all agreed that it had to have seen a bit of service during the war, if we allow paper designs we'll all be spewing crap about German plans for jet planes that could hit 650mph with a 10,000lb internal payload and 4x 30mm and rediculously advanced radar and could turn on a sixpence all with 1,000lbs of thrust...........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 23, 2005)

Agreed...The German designs are interesting and as much as id like to belive the figures claimed for them its hard to, it would take miracles for them to match up to their claims...

My opinion on the best fighter is the Fw-190D...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 23, 2005)

even if the A is better looking


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 23, 2005)

We aint starting this again  The D must be better looking, everything beginning with D looks good, Thats why my name is Dan...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 23, 2005)

you know it's possible there was a compliment towards me in there  but the A looks so good!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 23, 2005)

It does look amazing, but the D looks more amazing. Bigger is better...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 23, 2005)

then why is your girlfriend shorter than you? or is she bigger in annother way


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 23, 2005)

Perv


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 23, 2005)

come on i was expecting something better than that


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 23, 2005)

Fine.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 23, 2005)

Ah touché........


----------



## Jabberwocky (Oct 23, 2005)

USAAF pilots had a saying "The P-51 may not be able to do what the Spitfire can, but it can do it over Berlin"

The fundamental tradeoffs for the Merlin he engined P-51 serise were based around the two aspects

1. The laminar flow wing

2. The requirement for long range.

The P-51 didn't ever actually have a true laminar flow wing. There were too many imperfections in the airflow; manufacturing tolerances, alieron joints and balances, asymmetric airflow from the prop ect, that created airflow turbulence.

It did have a VERY low drag coefficient. That means it was fast, had good acceleration, had good dive acceleration and controlability at high speed. The wing also cruised very efficiently (high speed, low fuel usage).

The downside is that the wing had low lift properties, primarily at low speeds. This effected a cople of key areas that are essential to a close in digfighter. First of all climb at low speeds was relatively poor. The P-51D had a maximum sustained climb of about 3300 feet/ minute. Fighters like the Spitfire, 109 and La-7 were all capable of sustained climbs in excess of 5000 feet/minute. So at slow speed the P-51 can't hope to gain advantage by climbing. 

The second problem with a low lift wing is that stall speeds are higher. So while slotted wings like those on the 109 and La-5/7 serise and high lift wings like those on the Hurricane and the Spitfire allow good low speed handling, a low lift wing like the P-51s won't. Less lift means that the P-51 can't fly at as low speeds as its opponents.

The final problem with laminar flow wings is that they tend to have quite violent departure characteristics in the event of a stall, mostly due to high wingloading and rapid escalations of airflow turbulence. With the P-51 this manifested in a nasty tendency to drop a wing and roll over onto its back in a stall. While other aircraft such as the FW-190 and the Me-109 had similar stall characteristics, they were also lighter and and more benign in recovery.

The second requirement for the P-51 was range. The P-51 combined a low drag wing, with a very low drag fuselage/air intake combination and a high amount of internal and external tankage. So it could go a long way, at high altitudes and high speeds. 

The Merlin engined P-51 serise rarely had to scramble and climb to 20,000 feet to make an intercept. Most of its battles involved it already being at altitude, escorting bombers to and from targets. It could provide support, chase off or engage enemy fighters and then seek targets of opportunity on the return leg.

Due to it's wing design the P-51 WASN'T a dogfighter. It wasn't an interceptor. It couldn't hope to be either. Where it did work was in the long range escort and air superiority role that the USAAF used it in. It ws designed to fly fast for a long way, at high altitudes, and fight up there. It had a heavy, low drag airframe with good performance at high altitude. The P-51 was the quintessential energy fighter. It dove and zoomed well. It retained energy well. It turned well at high speeds, due to excellent alieron and elevator authority. It rolled better than almost any WW2 fighter at high speeds. It had excllent all around visability. It had an effective anti-fighter armament.

Take the P-51 out of that high speed, high altitude environemnt though and it wasn't nearly as competitive. I couldn't climb or turn with interceptors like the 190, Yak 3/9 or the Spitfire. It didn't have the medium altitude performance of the 190 serise or the La5/7. It worked well in a very specific role. It was unquestionably the best long range escort of the war. But combat operations for the Merlin engined P-51s were relatively narrow, a short period of the war and a defined role for most of that. Aircraft like the 109 and Spitfire solidered on through the war and remianed competitive, even superlative, in areas where the P-51 was not.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 23, 2005)

they're very good points and a great way to sum it up.........


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 23, 2005)

Id say that if the Mustang pilot kept his speed up and thus to his advantage, then he was going to rule the skys. I dont think any high scoring ace has gotten his kills by fighting to his enemies strenghts.


----------



## wmaxt (Oct 23, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> Id say that if the Mustang pilot kept his speed up and thus to his advantage, then he was going to rule the skys. I dont think any high scoring ace has gotten his kills by fighting to his enemies strenghts.



The first statement is correct in the proper context ie. with altitudes between 20k and 30k and teamwork. That statement also applies to the P-38, Fw-190 and Spitfire except they have a much wider altitude limitation.

The second statement is absoultly true and in the heat of the discussion we all forget that every plane here has its best altitudes as well as particular strengthes.

The Mustang was at its best in the ETO where it flew/fought at its best altitude and with a wingman, fought very effectively.

wmaxt


----------



## Erich (Oct 23, 2005)

JonG>

the result of simply no gas is all accredited to the heavy bomber campaign and not fighters of either the RAF or US AF. yes the spits and Jugs, P-51's ripped up the field but that was stationary craft for the most part, they did not bomb the oil facilities that the heavies accomplished....


----------



## JonJGoldberg (Oct 25, 2005)

lesofprimus: I see my quotes all over your postings, but none that confirm what you say I said about the German pilots. As for pissing contests, stoped that around 10.

As for the rest of you, seems we are having trouble deciding what may be the best fighter of WW2. I gave a shot at creating a comparison chart. My plane didn't win. Check it out. Maybe we can fix it. It should help us all start to be able to decide this 1once and for all...


----------



## Jabberwocky (Oct 25, 2005)

JonJGoldberg said:


> lesofprimus: I see my quotes all over your postings, but none that confirm what you say I said about the German pilots. As for pissing contests, stoped that around 10.
> 
> As for the rest of you, seems we are having trouble deciding what may be the best fighter of WW2. I gave a shot at creating a comparison chart. My plane didn't win. Check it out. Maybe we can fix it. It should help us all start to be able to decide this 1once and for all...




Great work. An interesting comparison and thumbs up for doing it.

Just a couple of points

1. The P-38s top speed was 440 mph at 25,700 feet with Allison V-1710-111/113 at 64 inches of manifold pressure. The common figure of 420/421 is for the J with Allison V-1710-89/91s at 60 Hg. The 414 mph for the P-38L is for the Allison V-1710s running at 60" Hg. They were cleared by Allison for 64" of manifold in late 1943, the 111/113 engines recieving a new quill shaft and other reinforcements, making them better able to handle the higher power. It was never 'offical' in the written in stone sense, but it was the most common rating for P-38Ls on 110/145 octane. 

2. The Fw-190D could do 366-369 mph at sea level with MW-50 boost, fitted from the second production airframe and used from December 1944. At full emergency power with MW-50 some Doras recorded 379 mph at sea level. 366-369 would be typical of a service example. The 356 mph figure is for full combat power, but not full emergency power. 

3. All P-47D-27s or later were operationally limited to 64 inches mainfold producing some 2600 hp with the P&W 2800-59. Top speed was 441-444 mph at 30,000 feet.

4. The P-38J, L manual gives the P-38 a placard dive limit rating of 480mph True Airspeed (420 IAS). The manual states "Do not exceed placard limits more than 20mph with dive recovery flaps extended. Carlo Popps excellent P-38 article gives the dive redline at 500 mph.

5. What weights are the slow speed stall limits given for? For example the P-38 had a slow speed stall limit of 94 mph at 15,000 lbs and 105 mph at 19,000 lbs, both with flaps up. 'Dirty' stall speed (flaps and gear down) is noted as 69 mph and 78 mph respectively . 

6. Ammunition for the Mg151/20s in the FW-190 was 200 rpg in the wing guns and 475 rpg for the Mg131 in the nose. At your reduced RoF due to synch, firing duration should be about 22.5 seconds for the cannon and 43 seconds for the nose guns.

I also have a few issues with your gun power assesments, but that is a seperate and entirely complex enough issue on its own and I won't hold you to it.

Bonus points could also be handed out for gyroscopic gunsites fitted to US, British and German fighters.

You could also look at factors such as sustained rate of climb, time to height, acceleration, power to weight, airframe drag. 

Other factors to think about when judging a fighter include stick control forces, performance between 10-20,000 feet (where the majority of WW2 aviation actions took place), stall characteristics (istall indication, benign or violent, "mush" or wingdrop, control surface response ect), stall recovery characteristics (good or poor), armour protection/vulnerabilities, cockpit visibility, pilot workload (engine management, trim, instrument positioning) cockpit size and layout, sighting view (degrees of deflection over nose), takeoff and landing characteristics, dive acceleration, glide path, external ordanance options, duration allowable in WER/overboost ect and so on.

It would be interesting to see what happened if you added a Spitfire XIV, XXi or Tempest V to that list. Similarly, a Ki-84 or a La-7.


----------



## Parmigiano (Oct 25, 2005)

Here my first notes

On 'Bonus' category : 
-Credit the 190D for the automatic throttle/pitch/mixture management (kommandogerat)
-Credit the P51D (and P47?) for all-round vision canopy
-Credit smaller aircrafts for lower target area (or penalize the bigger ones)

On weapons: FW190 should be credited for the '4 in line weapons', since all her guns can be considered nose mounted (no need for horizontal harmonization, like the P38) It's the balance for the disadvantage of having them synchronized 
Also the 25% penalty for synchro is probably exxagerate:
FW190A used to have 2 MG151 sync + 2 MG151 wing mounted: when they deleted 2 guns in the D, if they decided to keep the sync guns is likely because they were more effective than the outer ones, in spite of the lower rate of fire.
The same logic was apllied with the Bf109, who moved from 2x20mm in the wings (E version) to one in the hub.

Congratulations for this big work, have no time now to properly read/analyze all parameters, maybe in the weekend...
bye


----------



## Parmigiano (Oct 25, 2005)

Here my first notes

On 'Bonus' category : 
-Credit the 190D for the automatic throttle/pitch/mixture management (kommandogerat)
-Credit the P51D (and P47?) for all-round vision canopy
-Credit smaller aircrafts for lower target area (or penalize the bigger ones)

On weapons: FW190 should be credited for the '4 in line weapons', since all her guns can be considered nose mounted (no need for horizontal harmonization, like the P38) It's the balance for the disadvantage of having them synchronized 
Also the 25% penalty for synchro is probably exxagerate:
FW190A used to have 2 MG151 sync + 2 MG151 wing mounted: when they deleted 2 guns in the D, if they decided to keep the sync guns is likely because they were more effective than the outer ones, in spite of the lower rate of fire.
The same logic was apllied with the Bf109, who moved from 2x20mm in the wings (E version) to one in the hub.

Congratulations for this big work, have no time now to properly read/analyze all parameters, maybe in the weekend...
bye


----------



## Parmigiano (Oct 25, 2005)

Here my first notes

On 'Bonus' category : 
-Credit the 190D for the automatic throttle/pitch/mixture management (kommandogerat)
-Credit the P51D (and P47?) for all-round vision canopy
-Credit smaller aircrafts for lower target area (or penalize the bigger ones)

On weapons: FW190 should be credited for the '4 in line weapons', since all her guns can be considered nose mounted (no need for horizontal harmonization, like the P38) It's the balance for the disadvantage of having them synchronized 
Also the 25% penalty for synchro is probably exxagerate:
FW190A used to have 2 MG151 sync + 2 MG151 wing mounted: when they deleted 2 guns in the D, if they decided to keep the sync guns is likely because they were more effective than the outer ones, in spite of the lower rate of fire.
The same logic was apllied with the Bf109, who moved from 2x20mm in the wings (E version) to one in the hub.

Congratulations for this big work, have no time now to properly read/analyze all parameters, maybe in the weekend...
bye


----------



## Parmigiano (Oct 25, 2005)

Here my first notes

On 'Bonus' category : 
-Credit the 190D for the automatic throttle/pitch/mixture management (kommandogerat)
-Credit the P51D (and P47?) for all-round vision canopy
-Credit smaller aircrafts for lower target area (or penalize the bigger ones)

On weapons: FW190 should be credited for the '4 in line weapons', since all her guns can be considered nose mounted (no need for horizontal harmonization, like the P38) It's the balance for the disadvantage of having them synchronized 
Also the 25% penalty for synchro is probably exxagerate:
FW190A used to have 2 MG151 sync + 2 MG151 wing mounted: when they deleted 2 guns in the D, if they decided to keep the sync guns is likely because they were more effective than the outer ones, in spite of the lower rate of fire.
The same logic was apllied with the Bf109, who moved from 2x20mm in the wings (E version) to one in the hub.

Congratulations for this big work, have no time now to properly read/analyze all parameters, maybe in the weekend...
bye


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 25, 2005)

Nice work Jon. Parmigiano seems to think it is good enough to post 4 times!


----------



## Parmigiano (Oct 25, 2005)

... well, I actually have no clue of what happened.. I've edited a few times with the 'preview' option but I swear I've clicked 'submit' only once....


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 25, 2005)

I think someone here several weeks ago, pointed out that US (and Brit?) pilots had a functionally working "G" suit.

That should be a bonus for the allied aircraft as the pilots could use their planes to their capabilities without passing out.


----------



## JonJGoldberg (Oct 25, 2005)

Jabberwocky: 
“The P-38s top speed was 440 mph …” You are correct… I had opened the wrong tables, indeed P-38J… I couldn’t find some data points that I had for other aircraft, info I did find within the ‘J’ tables. Killer Pick up. I will change the speed.

“The Fw-190D could do 366-369 mph at sea level with MW-50 boost...” Wow! Again, you are correct, however all SL speeds are without boost, the 360 figure is for the ‘38L. I had a hard time wrestling this issue, so I gave boosted at altitude and not at sea level, as all info I’ve seen with regard to MW boosting is that it is tuned for ‘max’ results at various altitudes, depending on the engine production block, or with others ‘field’ tuning is possible. If you and others feel this important, and I can get data, as to weather or not tuning was or was not available, we can update the charts with this feature in the ‘Bonus’ section.

“All P-47D-27s or later... Top speed was 441-444 mph at 30,000 feet.” No more praise for you, I’m running out of cookies. ‘P-47D-23’. I am missing lots of data for later models.

“The P-38J, L manual gives the P-38 a placard dive limit rating of 480mph…” That’s it, you’re the man! This was the data I needed, and borrowed from the J, not including the error above. I will change the speed, and note your input as an info source.

“What weights are the slow speed stall limits given for?” Great question. I had a really hard time acquiring flight performance data for the FW-190-D. Turning speed is not easily found for this, or any other aircraft, and rare German aircraft... So I searched ‘sim’ sites. I’ve seen at some ‘sim’ sites a ‘1% air file’, or what they refer to as ‘certified competition air files’ for MS 2k4. I found 3 versions, none for MS 2K4, but there was for CFS-3, MS 2K2, and CFS-2 done by a fellow named Jerry Beckwith. He built these performance charts based on ‘dry weight’. Upon looking at the data, and comparing it with data I have, they seemed to jive. To further test I downloaded the -38, -47, -51. The data on these tables, also dry weight matched what I could acquire. To give the same baseline to all competitors, at least for now, or until I can get more accurate data, I need to see if the comparison might work, all performance data with regard to the “Horizontal Limits” were obtained from Jerry’s tables. I’ll change them if you and others are able to provide either; 1-a single source of info for all (OK most) data; Or 2-Approved data is provided for me (I’ll research as well, no prob).

“Ammunition for the Mg151/20s in the FW-190 was 200 rpg in the wing guns and 475 rpg for the Mg131 in the nose.” The Formula I used was {(((475/(0.75*15))*2)+((200/(0.75*12))*2))*0.1}. I will be changing this as I have found new info regarding ‘synchronizers’ and their implementation. It will become {(((475/(0.9*15))*2)+((200/(0.9*12))*2))*0.1}. This is due to information found within Anthony G Williams Emmanuel Gustin’s extensive documentation that accompanies their table. Within their work I found the following this morning, I’m home, sick; “Where the rate of fire for the synchronized installation is not known, a reduction of 25% of the unsynchronized rate of fire has to be assumed. An exception is made for the MG 131 and MG 151/20 with their electrical priming systems (10%) and the big Browning .50 M2, Ho-103, and Ho-5 (40%), as these weapons reportedly suffered badly when synchronized.” This information will be added to my comparison chart. These guys are fixated on the guns, ballistics our fixations carry. The paper was a draft rating the relative effectiveness of the weapons in the table, I edited out parts not related to my table (including the weight of the gun efficency of the guns, relative to ROF projectile energies) copied the rest. I write this as you, and others have expressed issues with the Gun chart. Please find info related to this here >> http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/index.htm

“Bonus points could also be handed out for gyroscopic gunsites fitted to US, British and German fighters” I don’t think so, for this ‘test’ comparison, but I could be persuaded. I intended the bonus section to contain ‘special’ features that aid in combat, but don’t appear in performance tables, always; things that might be unique to one or two in the comparison, and obviously effective tools. Although I think the gun site you mention is something that should appear in a comparison between aircraft containing gun sites of differing technologies, or generations. Maybe I’m not thinking broadly enough, and you’re foreseeing a day when all aircraft appear in this chart.

“Other factors to think about when judging a fighter include stick control forces…” Great; but don’t give me only categories; try to give me an idea on how to ‘weight’ them in relative importance (points), as compared to turning speed for example, and how to acquire the data.

“It would be interesting to see what happened if you added a Spitfire XIV, XXi or Tempest V to that list. Similarly, a Ki-84 or a La-7” I’d love to. Are you willing to help?

Parmigiano:

“Here my first notes On 'Bonus' category : 
-Credit the 190D for the automatic throttle/pitch/mixture management (kommandogerat) 
-Credit the P51D (and P47?) for all-round vision canopy 
-Credit smaller aircrafts for lower target area (or penalize the bigger ones)”
I’m going to add the throttle/pitch/mixture management (kommandogerat) to the bonus, as I feel this, like recovery flaps, or twin engines to be of significance (You do realize that the ’51, not the ‘190 will be at the bottom, so I do this at great personal cost, maybe 4 points, kidding, it’s a 5 pointer). As for the ‘bubble’ canopy, and target area, it’s not a bad idea, I agree to its relevance, but I have a slight problem on just how to properly assess that, especially if we are to consider a P-38 or a Fw-189V1b, on both counts; I’m open to suggestions. 

“On weapons: FW190 should be credited for the '4 in line weapons'…” I agree, sorry about that.

“Also the 25% penalty for synchro is probably exaggerate” Not at all, it seems I made a good 1st guess, but there will be changes, see above within my replies to Jabberwocky (it starts with… “Ammunition for the Mg151/).

syscom3:
Thanks for your help.
“I think someone here several weeks ago, pointed out that US (and Brit?) pilots had a functionally working "G" suit.” I sure do hope so, my ’51 is needing help with this table.


To all, thanks! PS >>> I would also like some suggestions on how to properly insert failure rates, like Tiffy engines. Maybe I should add a Penilty Section. What do you think.


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 25, 2005)

One question thats been nagging me for a few weeks, is how all the planes differed from their peak performance when fully loaded with fuel and ammo, as compared when they are lightened from low fuel and low ammo. Did their performce change much?

Another question....... in the quick maneuvers in a dogfight, did the fuel in the tanks slosh around enough to make the plane unstable or wobble?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 25, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> One question thats been nagging me for a few weeks, is how all the planes differed from their peak performance when fully loaded with fuel and ammo, as compared when they are lightened from low fuel and low ammo. Did their performce change much?



They would change and a pilot would notice a difference to a point....



syscom3 said:


> Another question....... in the quick maneuvers in a dogfight, did the fuel in the tanks slosh around enough to make the plane unstable or wobble?



Aircraft fuel tanks either have baffles to prevent this or the individual fuel cells are designed so "sloshing" is kept to a minimum.


----------



## JonJGoldberg (Oct 25, 2005)

syscom3:
“One question thats been nagging me for a few weeks, is how all the planes differed from their peak performance when fully loaded with fuel and ammo, as compared when they are lightened from low fuel and low ammo. Did their performce change much?” 

Yes, because of where the weight is changing; so one flaw with these charts may be just that. However, a pilot who is capable will not change the planes center of gravity, unless he has no choice, or it is of benefit. Many 51 pilots used fuel in the aft tanks first, lighting the tail for ‘dog-fighting’ for example. Another example, aircraft, such as the ‘47D/ ‘Fw-190 with no wing tanks have roll rates unaffected by their use of gas; ‘38s ‘51s with wing tanks must pay attention to their relative levels. Of course the drawback to this is range. However please consider the following, these tables assume the weather is beautiful, and there is no wind or rain. Yes each aircraft reacts differently to cross winds, relative humidity etc. We must start somewhere, or argue forever.

”Another question....... in the quick maneuvers in a dogfight, did the fuel in the tanks slosh around enough to make the plane unstable or wobble…” 

LOL, they had baffles to minimize this, but yes I guess the tanks sloshed around, I would imagine this being a (small) problem at only at about ½ tank or slightly above, where the fuels mass sill matters and there is room in the tank to move around.


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 25, 2005)

the only authentic WW2 fuel cell Ive seen was at Chino. It was back in the 80's and they had their SBD torn apart and had the pieces on display. The fuel tank needed repairs and was split open. I didnt see any baffles in it.


----------



## wmaxt (Oct 25, 2005)

Jabber,

Could I have your sources? I always like to back up what I have.

My sources give the L 414 @ 54in and 1,425hp, and the J 420 @ 54in and 1,425 both in METO throttle.

Jon,

Rember even if wasn't used much in the ETO, the use of differential throttle and rudder for max performance in a P-38.

The 480 dive limit is also altitude (density) dependant.

wmaxt


----------



## JonJGoldberg (Oct 25, 2005)

...As stated by FLYBOYJ above my post, the other means was to 'shape' the tanks like the tear shaped drop danks, or stepped tanks install the tanks as close to 'CG' as possible. I don't know if baffels were install in the SBD


----------



## JonJGoldberg (Oct 25, 2005)

wmaxt, I understand you point, and I'm excited to see all of you so inthused about this, but please, I think the table needs refining on bigger issues...


----------



## JonJGoldberg (Oct 25, 2005)

...hey how did I get to be a SSgt?


----------



## JonJGoldberg (Oct 25, 2005)

...What is this stuff anyway, un-confirmed Kills...confirmed Kills...


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 25, 2005)

I could explain it to u, and as an Admin I should, but I cant... No one really knows what it means...

Basically, u get a certain amount of uncon and conf kills for each post u make, up to a certain number of post in a given 24-48 hour period.... The longer the post, the more kills....

Kinda shows u who the REALLY big windbags are that dont post too often....


----------



## wmaxt (Oct 25, 2005)

JonJGoldberg said:


> wmaxt, I understand you point, and I'm excited to see all of you so inthused about this, but please, I think the table needs refining on bigger issues...



I've done tables like your doing (Iwish I could get it but I can't open it) and I know how complicated it can get. The P-38, even the early models could turn with the majority of the single engine fighters but artificialy limiting its capabilities isn't good either.

I'm not trying to be nitpicky, I know you'll do the best you can.

wmaxt


----------



## JonJGoldberg (Oct 25, 2005)

"I've done tables like your doing (Iwish I could get it but I can't open it)..."

I had to do this 3 times befor I understood how to poen the file I posted. Please download it and open with Adobe Acrobat Reader.

I look foward to your comments after it's opened... Use Rev.1.1 on page 21


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 25, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> the only authentic WW2 fuel cell Ive seen was at Chino. It was back in the 80's and they had their SBD torn apart and had the pieces on display. The fuel tank needed repairs and was split open. I didnt see any baffles in it.



In that case "Head Pressure" (No Pun) might be designed into the tank. This occurs when a pressure (either positive or negative depending on the design) is placed on the tank, the say way you might get gas released when you take the fuel tank off your car. This too will minimize sloshing in the tanks....

The design and placement of baldder tanks will play a part in this as well. When you saw the bladders, did you look inside? Somtimes even the bladders have baffles within them, only visible when the bladder is cut in 2.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Oct 25, 2005)

wmaxt said:


> Jabber,
> 
> Could I have your sources? I always like to back up what I have.
> 
> ...



The source I used is Carlo Kopps article "Der Gabelschwanz Teufel" at the WW2 Aviation essay page http://home.att.net/~C.C.Jordan/index.html

The generally quoted figure is 420 mph for the J and 414 mph for the L. Both figures are for 54" hg and 1425 Millitary Power with the Allison V-1710-89/91 (F-17 engine) or 111/113 (F-30 engine). However, Allison rated the 111/113 up to 67" Hg with 100/130 octane fuel and 1725 War Emergency Power. The F-30 was essentially the same as the F-17 but with 2 differences 1. A more efficient carburettor and 2. A 12 weight crankshaft instead of a 6 weight crankshaft. This allowed increases in manifold and more importantly, a new propellor overspeed rating of 3200 rpm, up from the old 3000.

While it was never 'rubberstamped' in the manuals, there was a field order in late 1943 that allowed an increase in manuals from 60" and 1600 hp at WEP to 66" and 1725 hp. It seems that It was only available for the P-38L-5 production blocks, which were delivered around October 1944. 

Lockheed performed dynamic output testing on 46 V-1710- F-30
engines in May of 1944. Power output varied from 1,737 hp to 1,765 hp at 60 in. Hg, 3,170-3,215 rpm. Four engines were subjected to boost pressures of 66 in. Hg. @ 3,200 RPM and produced the following output:
1,812 hp
1,833 hp
1,798 hp
1,807 hp

EDIT.

Did a little more digging and it seems that the numbers of P-38s that ran on 66" would of been fairly low; one fighter group in the ETO (474th) and a couple in the PTO. The most common figure would of been for the 1600 hp and 60" rating, BUT the 1725 hp rating was used in combat. It would probably be representative of a P-38L-5-LO in the final months of the war.


----------



## Erich (Oct 25, 2005)

sorry but the title is all wrong so would the data be ? Fork tailed devil was never used by any Luftwaffe vet.

two centos


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 25, 2005)

This is true...


----------



## JonJGoldberg (Oct 25, 2005)

FLYBOYJ:
"In that case "Head Pressure" (No Pun) might be designed into the tank. This occurs when a pressure (either positive or negative depending on the design) is placed on the tank, the say way you might get gas released when you take the fuel tank off your car. This too will minimize sloshing in the tanks...."

Why doesn't sloshing stop in a soda bottle? Not trying to be smart... But I don't think head pressure stops sloshing. I think its a physics thing, you can not compress a fluid (but you can compress the 'air' trapped within a fluid).

FLYBOYJ:
"The design and placement of bladder tanks will play a part in this as well. When you saw the bladders, did you look inside? Sometimes even the bladders have baffles within them, only visible when the bladder is cut in 2."

Did they use bladder tanks in small aircraft in WW2? Not an area I know a whole lot about; practically nothing aside what I wrote to syscom3; But now I'm curious. Seems that this system may cause more problems than it solves, looking at it from my point of view (an idiot to be sure); a bladder, I think would require some pressurization in order to be sure we didn't create a hiding spot, or to be sure we got every drop... Mind you, I'm not talking about the bladder between outer and inner walls of the tank (Self Sealing bladder) but a bladder holding fuel is what I think you are saying.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Oct 25, 2005)

Erich said:


> sorry but the title is all wrong so would the data be ? Fork tailed devil was never used by any Luftwaffe vet.
> 
> two centos



I always understood it to be a Heer saying, not a LuftWaffe one. Probably something to do with the amount of G/A sorties that the P-38 did in Normandy and its unique shilouette when viewed from below.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 25, 2005)

JonJGoldberg said:


> FLYBOYJ:
> "In that case "Head Pressure" (No Pun) might be designed into the tank. This occurs when a pressure (either positive or negative depending on the design) is placed on the tank, the say way you might get gas released when you take the fuel tank off your car. This too will minimize sloshing in the tanks...."
> 
> Why doesn't sloshing stop in a soda bottle? Not trying to be smart... But I don't think head pressure stops sloshing. I think its a physics thing, you can not compress a fluid (but you can compress the 'air' trapped within a fluid).



Because soda (basically water) weighs more than Av Gas - it possesses a characteristic that makes it slosh more.

AV Gas actually has a characteristic (I can't remember the name) that keeps it somewhat contained if pressurized. I think it's because of it's petroleum base. It tends to "creep" or adhere to the sides of a container. It's this same characteristic (god I wish I remembered the name) that mandates the float level of carburetor to be taken in the middle of the float instead of the sides - sounds crazy, but I remember this from A&P school.....



JonJGoldberg said:


> FLYBOYJ:
> "The design and placement of bladder tanks will play a part in this as well. When you saw the bladders, did you look inside? Sometimes even the bladders have baffles within them, only visible when the bladder is cut in 2."
> 
> Did they use bladder tanks in small aircraft in WW2? Not an area I know a whole lot about; practically nothing aside what I wrote to syscom3; But now I'm curious. Seems that this system may cause more problems than it solves, looking at it from my point of view (an idiot to be sure); a bladder, I think would require some pressurization in order to be sure we didn't create a hiding spot, or to be sure we got every drop... Mind you, I'm not talking about the bladder between outer and inner walls of the tank (Self Sealing bladder) but a bladder holding fuel is what I think you are saying.



Bladders weren't used in small aircraft (L-19s L-5s, etc.). A plain rubber bladder were mainly found in transport aircraft, self sealing bladders were found in combat aircraft - again you're correct about the pressurization, it was common to have boost pumps providing positive pressure so the fuel doesn't "Hide." Boost pumps would be turned on during take offs and landings, emergencies and I would assume during combat - you would want to be assured there is a positive displacement of fuel going to the engine....


----------



## JonJGoldberg (Oct 26, 2005)

FLYBOYJ:
"Because soda (basically water) weighs more than Av Gas..."

I do not think weight has anything to do with compressing a fluid; however with regard to mass, I can see that may cause more slosh, once started.

FLYBOYJ:
"AV Gas actually has a characteristic (I can't remember the name) that keeps it somewhat contained if pressurized..."

Again, its a fluid... But the characteristic you describe is called 'skin effect', with regard to the surface tension of a fluid at the layer of contact with another substance, or dissimilar fluid; or 'viscosity' maybe, the ability of a fluid to flow, or creep.

Anyway the only way this may work, in my head, and explain why syscom3 saw nothing in the tank he viewed, if the tank had a bladder can be seen in the gross pic attached... They probably discarded the bladders, or like myself before today, he did not recognize them for what they were in the clutter, as he did not know


----------



## JonJGoldberg (Oct 26, 2005)

Wow... Based upon how many times I see you guys downloaded that fuel tank drawing of mine, as opposed to the chart, I'm hoping you don't about it as opposed to not caring. Since the ones who have seen it had very positive responses I'm re-posting it... 

WW2 Fighter Operational Air to Air Performance Direct Comparison Table

An attempt to settle which fighter was best...

Sorry to all, in advance, who hate large posts...


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 26, 2005)

Thats a nice chart. 

I hope you can get more planes listed on it.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 26, 2005)

it doesn't seem to work for me........


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 26, 2005)

JonJGoldberg said:


> FLYBOYJ:
> "Because soda (basically water) weighs more than Av Gas..."
> 
> I do not think weight has anything to do with compressing a fluid; however with regard to mass, I can see that may cause more slosh, once started.
> ...



I think you're hitting the nail on the head - in addition I seen rubber blader fuel tanks with "baffels" built in - these are strips of rubber within the bladder attached side-to-side taking up the with of the tank.


----------



## wmaxt (Oct 27, 2005)

[quote="Jabberwocky]


While it was never 'rubberstamped' in the manuals, there was a field order in late 1943 that allowed an increase in manuals from 60" and 1600 hp at WEP to 66" and 1725 hp. It seems that It was only available for the P-38L-5 production blocks, which were delivered around October 1944. 

Lockheed performed dynamic output testing on 46 V-1710- F-30
engines in May of 1944. Power output varied from 1,737 hp to 1,765 hp at 60 in. Hg, 3,170-3,215 rpm. Four engines were subjected to boost pressures of 66 in. Hg. @ 3,200 RPM and produced the following output:
1,812 hp
1,833 hp
1,798 hp
1,807 hp

EDIT.

Did a little more digging and it seems that the numbers of P-38s that ran on 66" would of been fairly low; one fighter group in the ETO (474th) and a couple in the PTO. The most common figure would of been for the 1600 hp and 60" rating, BUT the 1725 hp rating was used in combat. It would probably be representative of a P-38L-5-LO in the final months of the war.[/quote]

Good info that expands on what I knew. That field order would have applied to the J models too.

1800+hp would give 450mph in a P-38J/L like it did in the K model!

Allison also ran the V-1710 to 2,300 hp and over 100". Here is an interesting site:
http://www.unlimitedexcitement.com/Miss US/Allison V1710 Engine.htm

L-5s were being sent out by September '44 and I'm sure the Crew chiefs "adjusted" things for their pilots.

wmaxt


----------



## Jabberwocky (Oct 27, 2005)

wmaxt said:


> Good info that expands on what I knew. That field order would have applied to the J models too.
> 
> 1800+hp would give 450mph in a P-38J/L like it did in the K model!
> 
> ...



I don't think that the F-17 engines that the P-38J were equipped with were able to be safely overbooseted to 66" Hg. 

The F-30 had alterations to the carburettor and a 12 weight crankshaft, instead of a 6 weight crankshaft on the F-17s. The 6 weight wouldn't of been able to take the load of the higher RPMs. Ring's P.R.O. Docs page used to have some information on exactly this issue, but it seems to have gone off line.

IIRC the 12 weight crankshaft of the F-30 was actually under less stress at 1725 Hp, 66" Hg than the 6 weight crankshaft was at 1600 hp and 60" Hg. I know that fighter pilots and mechanics liked to 'tweak' their engnes for more performance (I have a pilots account of early razorback P-47s running at 90" or 100" Hg for 30 seconds in combat, instead of the normal 52" or 54" hg!), but it probably woulnd't have been widespread running the F-17s that high.


----------



## wmaxt (Oct 27, 2005)

Jabberwocky said:


> I don't think that the F-17 engines that the P-38J were equipped with were able to be safely overbooseted to 66" Hg.
> 
> The F-30 had alterations to the carburettor and a 12 weight crankshaft, instead of a 6 weight crankshaft on the F-17s. The 6 weight wouldn't of been able to take the load of the higher RPMs. Ring's P.R.O. Docs page used to have some information on exactly this issue, but it seems to have gone off line.
> 
> IIRC the 12 weight crankshaft of the F-30 was actually under less stress at 1725 Hp, 66" Hg than the 6 weight crankshaft was at 1600 hp and 60" Hg. I know that fighter pilots and mechanics liked to 'tweak' their engnes for more performance (I have a pilots account of early razorback P-47s running at 90" or 100" Hg for 30 seconds in combat, instead of the normal 52" or 54" hg!), but it probably woulnd't have been widespread running the F-17s that high.



Your probably right, they had some unique changes to the engines used with the K model too.

wmaxt


----------



## JonJGoldberg (Oct 28, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass:
"it doesn't seem to work for me........"

As in no hope, or fix this change that?

To All >>>
I'm posting Rev.2 of the chart. Added two more aircraft. Found and corrected some errors. Revised some things; tinkered a bit...Recieved/found new data, so I was able to change performance to "combat weight"

Help me make this work.

Thanks!!!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 28, 2005)

it didn't work as in it didn't show when i clicked on the last link, and i got that chart, it's very impressive..........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 29, 2005)

This is a really late post here but since I have been gone for a couple of weeks I will post it anyhow. There is a particular member that keeps saying that the numerical superiority of the P-51 should be thrown out the window because there were many Luftwaffe planes that were built just as numerous such as the 14000 Bf-109G's. The only comment I have to say to that is: *If you really think that there were 14000 Bf-109G's in the air at the same time then you are more naive than I thought!*

Second comment is that I have come to the understanding that some people here play these flight sim games and believe that they are "real fighter pilots" and believe everything that happens in these games especially when they are playing on "weakling" mode or invincible. Ive got news for you people Flight Sims are not "real" eneogh to base an opinion off of how an aircraft truely performs.

Yes they have gotten better over time and have become pretty acurate but dont take them as the bible of WW2 fighter combat.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 29, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Second comment is that I have come to the understanding that some people here play these flight sim games and believe that they are "real fighter pilots" and believe everything that happens in these games especially when they are playing on "weakling" mode or invincible. Ive got news for you people Flight Sims are not "real" eneogh to base an opinion off of how an aircraft truely performs.



Right on Adler! - I love to get students who tell me they played these sims - the first time I put em in a stall they Sh*t....

Some one posted here about flying sims and comparing them with the real thing - Put on a flight suit, G suit and Helmet dump a bucket of water over you, turn the room A/C down to 50F, Strap yourself in a big easy chair, get you're brother's 230 pound girfriend to sit on you when you pull Gs and if the room has a firplace, throw some .22 rounds in the fire to simulate small arms fire - Fly Safe!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 6, 2005)

Okay this has now been split and there is a sepperate thread for Flight Sim argument. This one can not get back on topic.


----------



## JonJGoldberg (Nov 6, 2005)

OK... I'm very glad the flight sim vs reality topic was split out. I think, however the knife was dull...

Look for the Spit-14, A6M5, F4U-1D to be added to the tables, and some more refinements, as I'll be working for the next few hours on the tables...

Feed Back Requested!!!


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 6, 2005)

Look forward to seeing the revised edition Jon. Keep up the good work.


----------



## JonJGoldberg (Nov 7, 2005)

Lets hope this brings activity back here... 

I fell asleep last night while working on the "WW2 Fighter Operational Air to Air Performance Direct Comparison Table Rev. 3.1". They are ready. Enjoy!!! Please send feedback.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Nov 7, 2005)

Very nice charts Jon, some great information there.

Its interesting that the P-38L comes out on top, when its combat results in Europe don't really show that. Against German opponents the Lightning had a kill ratio of approximately 1.1~1.2 in the ETO.

Allied intelligence reports and interviews with captured German fighter pilots revealed that if German pilots had to go up against a fighter in the ETO, then they though the Lightening was the easiest pickings and the Spitfire the most difficult. 

The Lightning was by all accounts a very difficult aircraft to get the most out of. It required more training hours and pilot attention than any other fighter in the Allied arsenal. For the time it was a technologivcal monster. It could be very effective in well trained and prepared squadrons, as seen from its combat performance in the Pacific. However, in Europe, at higher altitudes and against faster opposition that could dive with it, it struggled to make the impact that the P-47 or P-51 did.


----------



## JonJGoldberg (Nov 8, 2005)

I couldn't agree more... In some of my earlier posts I mentioned economics, field service, training, but the arguments from most members when faced with those aspects went to pure 'specs'. I'm not able to find the following information to include in my tables, if you can help >>> the cost of non-American fighters; Service hours required vs flight time; Minimum training hours... Further, within the limited 'scope' of any table, the pilot, his skills are always missing. Sad to say...


----------



## JonJGoldberg (Nov 8, 2005)

Jabberwocky>>>


> The Lightning was by all accounts a very difficult aircraft to get the most out of. It required more training hours and pilot attention than any other fighter in the Allied arsenal. For the time it was a technologivcal monster. It could be very effective in well trained and prepared squadrons, as seen from its combat performance in the Pacific. However, in Europe, at higher altitudes and against faster opposition that could dive with it, it struggled to make the impact that the P-47 or P-51 did.



It was this part of your posting I was agreeing with... I post this mostly because I'm learning how to operate the toys here. Thanks for the encouragement.

If anyone can provide, or direct me, as to where to find any of the information mentioned in my previous post, please contact me.


----------



## wmaxt (Nov 8, 2005)

JonJGoldberg said:


> Jabberwocky>>>
> 
> 
> > The Lightning was by all accounts a very difficult aircraft to get the most out of. It required more training hours and pilot attention than any other fighter in the Allied arsenal. For the time it was a technologivcal monster. It could be very effective in well trained and prepared squadrons, as seen from its combat performance in the Pacific. However, in Europe, at higher altitudes and against faster opposition that could dive with it, it struggled to make the impact that the P-47 or P-51 did.
> ...



The Offical view is a little biased against the lightning.

The early models had some trouble and the comment by Jimmy Doolittle the man who opted for the P-51 in the ETO in conversations with Warren Bodie made these remarks not a direct quote: The P-38 may not have been the best fighter of WWII but this can probably be attributed to factors unrelated to to the aircrafts capabilities. Strategic and Tactical doctrine proved to be a severe handicap to utilazitionof this type at the time they were first deployed to the ETO. The P-51Bs and P-47s would have done poorly under the conditions the P-38s flew in. (and remember these were new basicaly untried planes at the time.
He went on to offer this opinion It was at its prime at lower altitudes and warmer climates. and went on to say It was far ahead of all but the one or two of the most outstanding fighters of WWII.

The engines had problems first from the fuel and the standard operating provisions did not keep the engines warm, reduced cockpit heat, used more fuel than needed and that was made worse by using 1 generator that was overloades.
Cockpit heat was terrible both in fact and exaserbated by the operating conditions used by the 8th AF.
Compression in dives above 20k was an issue but the 8th restricted the planes from diving when all that had to be done was retard the throttles. 
Range was also reduced because the 8th never used the 300 gallon drop tanks.
All this was fixed in the J-25 on.

With all these problems the 8th AF lost 451 P-38s the entire war (at 10 german:1 P-38 odds). I don't yet have numbers for the 9th which was primarily G/A. The P-38 had just under 5:1 (608:113 P-38s) in the MTO and I've heard 8:1 in the PTO but I haven't sorted that all out yet. FGs with the L model often reported 20:1 near the end of the war.

The vast majority of the 1,771 enemy aircraft destroyed in the air (the ETO) was by the 8th. The true loss rate is around 4:1 in favor of the P-38. I have not sorted out the numbers all the way but the 1,758 lost P-38s cannot be accurate with the info, from AAF statistics, I have now. 

The early models were considered superior to its rivals below 15K and even above 20K by the 20th FG. Several German pilots relate similar stories. There is also a story about an H model outperforming a Griffon Spitfire. In the Planes and Pilots there are some very candid remarks by Art Hieden about the P-38s, P-38Ls and the P-51s.

wmaxt


----------



## JonJGoldberg (Nov 8, 2005)

Curious on how others are trying to answer the question Best Fighter of WW2, I opened an article titled “F4U-4: The Best Fighter/Bomber of WW2?” while sampling one of Jabberwocky’s posted ‘source’ sights, (http://home.att.net/~C.C.Jordan/index.html). Mind you, I’ve just finished posting Rev.3 of my tables, which contains the newly added F4U-1D, which did not fair well. Maybe, as the '38, '190, Mc205V, to name a few, I shoud have done the -4;maybe I'll do the -4b, the cannon armed monster. Secondly, if you recall (probably not, I like too many of these dam planes), the F4U is one of my favs, but with the Corsair, I can remember after 1st seeing the bent wings, this is no recent affair (Believe it or not the Pony, Jug, Warhawk are newcomers, have to a great deal displaced the ‘Bent Winged Bird’ as the center of WW2 fighter attention, for me), I scribe this at the age of 44, refer to a memory wile I was 8, looking for a ‘hobby’ other than carving boring soap box racers from wood. I told my dad that I wanted to “…build a model of that. What is it?” He didn’t know. Woops, I digress…
I started reading Corey C. Jordan’s copyright protected F4U article (that I can only describe/surmise, as the site clearly states that posting to a ‘public forum’ any part of the article without express written permission…). He starts taking about strong arguments supporting the -4 Corsair’s merits, in attempt to show how strong his argument is, states that the aircraft had only 6-months to serve during WW2, but it was respected by MIG-15 pilots in Korea, at low altitude, below 300 knots… I closed the article.
My point here is that although painful, if we are to indeed to decide on the best fighter of WW2, not by opinion, but some sort of empirical chart, or by committee, we should at least agree that all evidence of ascendancy come from WW2. I’m not saying that one can not support their point of view on which WW2 fighter was best by saying “… it went on to serve admirably in Korea.” But to use the ‘next’ war in which the aircraft served to cement its position status as a weapon during WW2 is ludicrous. I’d love to address within my tables, what was a WW2 fighter; how many needed to be built; from when to when; did it need to see combat… I know I’ve asked before, but now you, the members here have seen some commitment from me… Another place I’m going with this is; do I include Egyptian moded Mc205V (as if I could acquire enough data for that) as at least one of them claimed an Israeli P-51 in 1948. Or what about the Israeli moded Merlin Bf-109s (tell me there is no irony here), or…




> The Offical view is a little biased against the lightning.



Reply to Wmaxt >>

The evidence shows that you are correct in this assessment with regard to the ETO, I agree; however the ‘bias’ was/is not without warrant.




> The early models had some trouble and the comment by Jimmy Doolittle the man who opted for the P-51 in the ETO in conversations with Warren Bodie made these remarks...



Reply to Wmaxt >>

I believe, with regard to the P-38 ETO Doolittle made the correct assessment; you are also correctly assessing in part in retrospect, both what could have happened, if allowed, why it didn’t happen in fact, engine troubles the applied strangling safety measures. The other part, missed was/is the cost, in sheer dead Presidents, money, all aspects of fielding the Lighting, from purchase, through training maintenance, to the cost to fly. Looked at from this perspective, 1 Lighting (Cost: $115,000) = 2 P-51s (Cost: $108,000) with $7,000 remaining for party money. If I changed the names, for a moment, to 1 F-14 = 2 F-18s, what do you choose? If I further inform you that each sortie flown in an F-14 will cost you more in supplies service hrs. than an equivalent of 2 F-18s flying the same mission...




> Strategic and Tactical doctrine proved to be a severe handicap to utilazitionof this type at the time they were first deployed to the ETO. The P-51Bs and P-47s would have done poorly under the conditions the P-38s flew in.



Reply to Wmaxt >>

As you ( I) point out all these specs, one of the things I which I could qualify is the effect of rumor. For example, hypothetically you’re a ’38 pilot, proud of your mount, but a friend of yours, not a bad ’38 driver, not great, fairly aggressive lost it on take off. Several weeks later this crazily moded ’38 comes knockin’ to show you how safe your plane actually is… Gotta take the wind out a bit. ...Food for thought as to the doctrine, its stay.



> He went on to offer this opinion It was at its prime at lower altitudes and warmer climates. and went on to say It was far ahead of all but the one or two of the most outstanding fighters of WWII.



Reply to Wmaxt >>

"When the equipment was working properly, the P-38 was a definite match for German fighters. In fact, when below 20,000 ft., the P-38 was superior in many ways. The problem was that the Germans rarely engaged American fighters at lower altitudes...." This quote from http://www.p-38online.com/decline.html



> ...Range was also reduced because the 8th never used the 300 gallon drop tanks.
> All this was fixed in the J-25 on.



Reply to Wmaxt >>

For sure you are more versed in Lighting history than I. I still correlate all these statements to engine troubles, specific to ETO, but with regard to the solution being –J25 later, this I question (I’m not saying I know); only in light of LeVier’s early ’44 mission, which resulted in (among other things), I thought, starting in June ’44, deliveries of the 2520 P-38L-5-LOs equipped with submerged fuel pumps. I thought I read wile acquiring data to work my tables, that this was the primary difference between the similar set of J-25-LO L-1-LOs that preceded the L-5-LO, that the L-5-LO was the 1st ’38 variant with lifted ETO restrictions, save the external tank size (this for sure was due to comfort levels based on ETO bias, I believe, possibly a shortage of 300 gallon tanks, as the were being consumed in the PTO, ’38 specific).




> With all these problems the 8th AF lost 451 P-38s the entire war (at 10 german:1 P-38 odds). I don't yet have numbers ... considered superior to its rivals below 15K and even above 20K by the 20th FG. Several German pilots relate similar stories ...



Reply to Wmaxt >>

I really don’t quite know how to reply here, maybe it’s best to remain silent, but there’s no fun in that… The earlier models were superior, in some respects, to their German adversaries @ medium altitudes; I’ll concede this by thumb wrestle for now to get the point across, as well as above 20K ft. but not to the point that the ‘38 ‘outclassed’ them. Again, I’m the last one, especially now, to say the Lighting couldn’t perform. It sure could, with a Bong (watch it…) at the wheel, in the PTO, she ruled. But, the ’38 required an Ace with skilz to pilot her well, use her correctly draw out her potential, where as many other types, for the sake of the point ( as shown to date within the tables), with nearly equal aerial performance, were a lot less expensive, similarly, a lot less demanding, therefore potentially exploited more fully.


----------



## wmaxt (Nov 9, 2005)

The cost issue is not valid durring the war, as I've pointed out before the P-38 went to a second source in '45 after the P-51 etc. had "proven" themselves. Once the war was over it was a whole different story, and the P-38 went quickly, the last being bulldozed in early '50.

The superority of early P-38s (low level primaririly) was mentioned (I'll try to find the quote and reference)by the German comander on Sardinia that his aircraft were totaly outclassed by the P-38 in all respects to the point that he complained to Adolf Galland. In p38 online there is a story by a German ace with a Bf-109-G6 that is pertinent here.

the 451 P-38s lost by the 8th AF can be found here
http://www.taphilo.com/history/8thaf/8aflosses.shtml This is also where all the 'engine problems' occured and includes enemy aircraft (odds up to 10:1 in 43/early44), engines, cold, accidents and everything else. This does not include losses incurred by the 9th AF which did a portion of the escort duties.

The P-38 was doing long range escort in the MTO and the PTO for several months to close to a year (respecively) before the 8th gave up self defending bombers. The Yamamoto mission, of the same ranges used in the ETO was in '42. By minimizing the ability and use of the "problems" of the 38 and saying a capable escort fighter was not available until the P-51, the leaders of the airforce were able to sidestep the congressonal investigations on the loss of life on bomber missions and save their carrears. The three articals on the Der Gaber... in Planes and pilots touches on this I think as does
http://yarchive.net/mil/p38.html

I like the F4U-4 artical and endorse its use in your data chart. One of the reasons I like it is that it shows the 'except for the P-38 points' though it missed a couple of others.

The comments/opinions by Jim Dollittle of the P-38 'was far ahead of all but 1 or 2 of the most outstanding fighters of WWII. And 'as would the P-51 and P-47 had they been operated under the same conditions'. As well as the comments in the P-38 articals by Art Heiden (and others) in The Planes and Pilots of WWII were not hopped up P-38s.

In his book on the P-38 Warren Body (I recomend this book) mentions some very good stuff. P-38 Online has some good stuff but also has a lot of standard stuff that has been around forever and is biased as well.

Another artical to check on is Jeff Ethels flight of a P-38 in the Flight Jourlal Magazine site. Jeff flew most if not all WWII fighters so his comments should be pretty good.

I don't think the P-38, even the L, was the end all pistion fighter but it did the job it was asked every where it was asked to do it, even the ETO. It was always compettitive with it's contemporary compettitors and the L was, if not better than was as good as and always had at least 1 or 2 advantages over its compettitors and even stable mate. The Fw-190, Spitfire and F4U-4 were right there too in fact I think these 4 are the best Piston fightes ever. 

wmaxt


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 9, 2005)

wmaxt said:


> ....... The Yamamoto mission, of the same ranges used in the ETO was in '42. wmaxt



That mission was in 1943.


----------



## JonJGoldberg (Nov 9, 2005)

> The cost issue is not valid durring the war, as I've pointed out before the P-38 went to a second source in '45 after the P-51 etc. had "proven" themselves.



Reply to wmtmax >>>
Cost is always an issue during war, unless the circumstance (such as imminent self preservation, or an act of congress...), or dictator (King, Generalissimo, etc. of same stature) declares otherwise. You mention yourself about the Warren Body... I finally understand the 2nd source thing, you mean a 2nd factory. Yes, the orders existed, a 2nd plant was opened, they delivered about 120 planes from there, if memory serves from what I read about a month ago now, the order was canceled. But I don't know what your getting at. If its the money thing, well let me say that just because it's an expensive weapon, it doesn't mean we ain't gonna build it, but not enough to give to everyone. If you try countering with something like, well if it was so expensive, how come a 2nd factory, especially since the '47, '51 were readily available... Because you don't put all eggs into one basket (the USA continues this tradition, F-15 > F-16, F-4 > F-5, one fighter expensive top quality, the other inexpensive, relatively, but capable); the amount of orders for the '47 '51 canceled at wars end dwarf the orders for '38s.



> I like the F4U-4 artical and endorse its use in your data chart. One of the reasons I like it is that it shows the 'except for the P-38 points' though it missed a couple of others.



Reply to wmtmax >>>
Figures. OK I'll add the -4 Corsair, I don't agree, but OK. As I was saying in the my last post I love the plane, but the -4 Corsair could not have had much of a chance during its 6-months with the Marines at fighter vs fighter or even fighter vs bomber, even during Korea. My understanding of the Korean War -4 -5s is that they were heavily armored up, fitted with wing racks aplenty. These are generally considered 'improvements' for a mud fighter, not a dog fighter, especially when the Corsair in general was, at the very least, an adequately armored Fighter/Bomber before attending the Mud Puddle Armor School for Old Fighters.

Reply to wmtmax >>>
As for the other stuff I didn't quote... Thanks for the info. I agree that the '38 was a very strong competitor at medium, medium high altitudes; I do not agree that it walked all over just about every other fighter, friend or foe, look at the tables. It came in 1st overall, tied with the '190-D, but unlike the '190 aced nothing except range; it was upper mid pack in most categories, averaging very well as most others were very strong in only one category, falling way off in others, the '38 received, duly, bonus points for two engines, which, in this closely contested field, put it over the top.

 To All >>>
A screen shot of my current favorite sim fighter, one I’m thinking about adding to the tables, along with the Hurricane, I have enough data for both, not that this empirical table will do them well, only that there is a debate raging on a ‘sister’ thread; after reading this you deserve a prize...


----------



## wmaxt (Nov 10, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> wmaxt said:
> 
> 
> > ....... The Yamamoto mission, of the same ranges used in the ETO was in '42. wmaxt
> ...



Your right April 18, 43, hit the wrong key.  

wmaxt


----------



## wmaxt (Nov 10, 2005)

Jon,

If you don't feel the F4U-4 is appropriate thats ok to. I hope you got the Roll, climb, speed data from the Planes and Pilots Page, it's the only location on the web that uses WEP power instead of METO power for its performance.

I wish I could get your chart but I can't seem to find a way to save it or get into a pdf program. I run Explorer and XP, if anyone has ideas it would be great.

The hardest part of this is to quantify Tactics, and pilot skill.

A lot has been said about the difficulty in flying the P-38 but when the training was approprite in '45 it had a much better accident rate than every other AAF fighter even the Mustang! Check it out on the AAF statistics page or the 8th AF losses page. overall the only plane that had a better accident record was the mustang at 824 for the war period. Compare that to 1,403/P-38, 1,923/P-39, 3,569/P-40 and 3,049/P-47 all rates per 100,000 flying hours.

By 44 the cost of a P-47 was $87,000 to a P-38 at $98,000 they made 16K? P-47s. The P-38 problem was numbers of A/C due to lack of second source until so late. The performance specs are on the Planes and Pilots page, Production was denied Primarily because of a ~2-3 week delay in production, about 120 planes. Cost was not the issue at this time.

Your doing great, keep it up.

wmaxt


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 10, 2005)

wmaxt you need Adobe Acrobat Reader. You can get it here: http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 10, 2005)

wmaxt said:


> syscom3 said:
> 
> 
> > wmaxt said:
> ...



Your punishment is to drink a six pack of WARM BUDWEISER BEER!!!!!

hehehehehe


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 10, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> wmaxt said:
> 
> 
> > syscom3 said:
> ...



GOD JUST KICK ME IN THE NUTS!


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 10, 2005)

OK....


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 10, 2005)

P.S. You're Welcome My Son...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 10, 2005)

God that's better, just keep that beer away from me!


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 10, 2005)

OK, I'll try, but them damn Jesuits........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 11, 2005)

LOL


----------



## wmaxt (Nov 11, 2005)

Gnomey said:


> wmaxt you need Adobe Acrobat Reader. You can get it here: http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html



Thanks for the link. 8) 

I had Acrobat, and downloaded the new one just to check. My problem is that that I can't/not allowed to save it anywhere to allow me to open it with Acrobat Reader.

wmaxt


----------



## JonJGoldberg (Nov 13, 2005)

Reply To wmaxt >>>
You need to steer it (...dump it to your desktop for now), or for some reason, lower your security settings (I have no viruses, am not intentionally sending one, please scan the file after downloading).

To All >>>
You really don't deserve this.... Rev 4.1 attached!!!


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 13, 2005)

The P-47N is the leader in what now????


----------



## wmaxt (Nov 14, 2005)

lesofprimus said:


> The P-47N is the leader in what now????



On Jon's Fighter Performance Chart. He's done a great job quantifing the performance of the top 12 or so fighters that fought in WWII.

I think its pretty close.

wmaxt


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 14, 2005)

K ty...


----------



## wmaxt (Nov 16, 2005)

Jon you might be interested in the last post in the Corsair versus Lightning thread by GregP. I

I have never heard anyone mention a preference for the wing mounted armament over armament grouped directly foward, except when strafing troops, where 1 bullet can kill effectively.

Wmaxt


----------



## JonJGoldberg (Nov 19, 2005)

...Well I'm Back!
I've been working, working on the table. Revision (5.6). The last revision for a while, maybe (probably) the final. The research is no longer 'fun'. Anyway, 21 aircraft in total. Download it if you dare.........

I will be reviewing the postings I missed tomorrow.


----------



## TigerSnake (Nov 19, 2005)

BLAH BLAH!!!

At the end of the day it was NUMBERS!!!!

The P47s all but neutralised the Luftwaffe (ashes to my tongue but true) then the SWARMS of allied (including over 60,000 Il2s and Yaks!!!) aircraft flown by well trained, keen young pilots finished them off!

Forget the heroic individual battles between this Ace and that Ace, this fighter and that fighter! They simply didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning....and a jolly good thing too!


----------



## Nonskimmer (Nov 19, 2005)

Boy, did _you_ miss the point of this thread.


----------



## TigerSnake (Nov 19, 2005)

Funny how all the 'Armchair Experts' never mention Russian aircraft when blathering about the merits of WWII Fighters!! The Party Line seems to be P51s and the 'Also-Rans'.

The Yak3s and La7s ran rings around ALL the Luftwaffe piston engined fighters in air combat....NOT only when they had the numbers either!


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 19, 2005)

I dont think youve been here long enough to have read all the threads about P38's, P47's, Typhoons, Spitfires, Hurricanes, P40's, Hellcats, Corsairs, P39's.........blah blah blah

And that isnt even counting the threads for the axis aircraft.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Nov 19, 2005)

TigerSnake said:


> 'Armchair Experts'


So you'd be a "real" expert then?


----------



## wmaxt (Nov 19, 2005)

TigerSnake said:


> Funny how all the 'Armchair Experts' never mention Russian aircraft when blathering about the merits of WWII Fighters!! The Party Line seems to be P51s and the 'Also-Rans'.
> 
> The Yak3s and La7s ran rings around ALL the Luftwaffe piston engined fighters in air combat....NOT only when they had the numbers either!



Actualy the Yak-3 is included in the chart. According to the chart the P-51 is 8th , 16 points behind the 3rd place plane.

The thing is, Tiger, no one knows the truth about the fighting in Russia, the records, to put it kindly, are inaccurate.

wmaxt


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 19, 2005)

TigerSnake said:


> Funny how all the 'Armchair Experts' never mention Russian aircraft when blathering about the merits of WWII Fighters!! The Party Line seems to be P51s and the 'Also-Rans'.



I recommend you look at some of the other threads, for the most part you'll find quite the opposite.....


----------



## JonJGoldberg (Nov 19, 2005)

There was a small error in shading (no numbers involved) I found due to my visit to the P-47 Vs F4U-4 thread. I kept the file title the same, as I feel the error to be so very minor... But, consistent with the personality of one who would create such a table, I feel I must re-post. 

To all, I thank you again to the mostly positive feedback I see on the site with regard to the tables.


----------



## plan_D (Nov 20, 2005)

Oi, stop putting the British aircraft in Greek numerials...it's Roman numerials...Hurricane Mk.IIC, Spiftire Mk.IX etc. etc. jesus christ!

And Tiger..I'm still drunk from last night..so don't expect a witty reply...but I'll just say - shut the f*ck up, you kangeroo bumming tart.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Nov 20, 2005)

Ah know ye're fae a broken home, an ye've goat a drug habit, an ye're a victim o' society, an ye've got low self esteem. Noo pit the video doon an get oota mah hoose afore ah take this cleaver tae yer haw maws ya wee burglin' bastart.

How do you like my Scottish?


----------



## plan_D (Nov 20, 2005)

You know I was born in Scotland, right? And that was sh*t, luckily for you I read it like a Scot ...so it wasn't THAT bad first time around.


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 20, 2005)

Tigerdork, the next time u refer to the members here are "Armchair Experts" I will personally ram a yellow card up ur ass.... U dont have the first clue whats going on here, or the information that we have talked and rehashed over here at this site, or the individuals that u are insulting...

If u want to be a part of this circus, I STRONGLY recommend that u go back through and read alot of the older posts and acclimate urself to the way things happen here... Otherwise, if u continue to run ur yap the way u have in the first 5 posts, ur stay here will not be an enjoyable one...


----------



## Erich (Nov 20, 2005)

Hussars don't even try Scotch-Gaelic, cause your's sucks big time.....

a suggestion Tiger and all newcomers before replying, please go back as Les recommended and re-read older posts of some years gone by and the old archivs's

if not then : Is minic a bhris be'al duine a shro'n.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 20, 2005)

Tigershark I take personal offense to your armchair pilot coment and I am pretty sure that FBJ does also. I suggest you tone it down a bit, or move on to someplace else.


----------



## Erich (Nov 20, 2005)

well let's look at his pont then if we may, he feels strongly that Soviet a/c could fly rings around Luftwaffe types.................ah no way bub.

with the advent of the Dora in 1945 it was all over for every single Soviet a/c type, proven. IV./JG 3 came up against all Soviet types and knocked them down, low level and taunted the soviets to come up and play high altitide tag, if they did they were creamed ...........


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 20, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Tigershark I take personal offense to your armchair pilot coment and I am pretty sure that FBJ does also. I suggest you tone it down a bit, or move on to someplace else.



Yep - I'm anxious to hear about his RAN association....

To put this in perspective:

I lived close to Edwards AFB, and even worked there for a spell. I've met many test pilots, some were real good guys, some were assh*les. I got to meet Chuck Yeager on several occasions, none of us could wear the guy's jockstrap, but his arrogance and disregard for those around him ruins the perception that many would expect of one like him. I seen him embarrass the Edwards Aero Club safety officer (who was a Major, former F-16 line pilot and a current test pilot) over a minor disagreement. It's one thing to disagree with someone, it's another to unilaterally browbeat someone with your experience, especial when there was no cause to be brash or arrogant.....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 20, 2005)

Erich said:


> well let's look at his pont then if we may, he feels strongly that Soviet a/c could fly rings around Luftwaffe types.................ah no way bub.
> 
> with the advent of the Dora in 1945 it was all over for every single Soviet a/c type, proven. IV./JG 3 came up against all Soviet types and knocked them down, low level and taunted the soviets to come up and play high altitide tag, if they did they were creamed ...........



Agreed. The Bf-109G and Ks were also good eneogh to handel just about anythign that the Russians put up. He also talks about 60,000 Il-2's. What makes you think that the Il-2's shot down a lot of enemy aircraft? It was a ground attack plane not a fighter dude. Sounds to me like he has been playing to much IL-2 Sturmovik on really really easy level, and he calls us armchair pilots.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 20, 2005)

He sounds like the guy who said the MiG-25 could out manuever the F-15!


----------



## plan_D (Nov 20, 2005)

He was a kangeroo bummer too. It's lucky we have some decent Australians on this site like Wildcat...or I'd just plain hate all Australians. 

Oh...wait I do hate 'em all anyway. And the French, Americans, Italians, Cornish, English, Scottish, Germans, Belgians, Russians, Brazilians, Canadians (especially those from Nova Scotia ...), Portugese, New Zealanders, *Africans, Arabs, Asians*...and even those people that no one evers sees because they live in places that are just plain not normal to live. 

The three in bold automatically make me a racist. Don't bother with the rest, it's okay to hate them.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Nov 20, 2005)

plan_D said:


> Oh...wait I do hate 'em all anyway...{ }...Canadians (especially those from Nova Scotia ...)


Awww, ya big tease!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 20, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> He sounds like the guy who said the MiG-25 could out manuever the F-15!



Who knows maybe the same guy?


----------



## SUperflanker37 (Nov 20, 2005)

Well the MiG-25 is fast... hehe. I think I might get the chance to fly one when I'm older, that is if I can come up with the money..
As far as WWII fighters go, I'm a real fan of the IL-2 Sturmovik and the F4U Corsair.


----------



## plan_D (Nov 20, 2005)

Welcome to the site, and the Il-2 isn't a fighter.


----------



## SUperflanker37 (Nov 20, 2005)

Hmm.. most people I've asked said it was a fighter.. but I could easily see why it isn't one.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Nov 20, 2005)

It was in no way shape or form a fighter. Straight attack aircraft.


----------



## plan_D (Nov 20, 2005)

The Sturmovik is about as much a fighter as the Ju-87 was a fighter. It was designed from the start to be a ground-attack aircraft and tank-buster.


----------



## SUperflanker37 (Nov 20, 2005)

Yeah.. I gotcha, definitly for attack.. but I don't think it'd be TOTALLY useless in air-to-air..


----------



## plan_D (Nov 20, 2005)

It could dogfight about as well as a brick.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 20, 2005)

The Il-2 was in no way a fighter as pd and NS have said. It could not hold it own in a dogfight against the Bf-109's or Fw-190's. It was too heavy, too slow, and not maneuverable eneogh. The people that have told you that it was a fighter are dumb! The aircraft was a tank with wings. It was built to destroy tanks and ground targets.

Welcome to the site by the way SUperflanker37


----------



## SUperflanker37 (Nov 20, 2005)

Thanks, and I think I'm gonna trust you people on this, you know what your talking about. In that case I think I can brag about winning a dogfight on a simulator in the IL-2.. against a FW-190 I think.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 20, 2005)

Ofcourse you can. The sims are no where close to the real thing. Please go to the thread about flying sims. You will see what I mean by that.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Nov 20, 2005)

I'll just have to be a voice of dissent here and say that I feel that the Yak-3, Yak-9U and La-7 were among the finest combat aircraft produced in the Second World War, with some qualifications.

First of all, they are primarily low to medium altitude fighters. Above about 5000-6000m they were outclassed by their Allied and German opponents, with the possible exception of the Yak-9U, which remains competitive up to about 7000m. Below 3000m the Yak-3 and the La-7 are clearly superlative; they combining excellent speed, climb and some of the best manouervrability of any WW2 combat aircraft.

Secondly they were all relatively short ranged, so none of them were capable strategic fighters. The fundamental character of the Soviet air efort in WW2 was tactical; short ranged, predominantly in support of dedicated ground attack aircraft and medium bombers. So in a western front situation they are not particularly useful.

Thirdly, there were many variations in the build quality of Soviet aircraft. So some aircraft may be well behind on performance, depending on the factory complex they were produced in. However, when you look at the variations in performance for Allied fighters during official testing, this is perhaps not suprising. The A&AEE noted that a 6-7% variation in speeds were not unusual for factory fresh airframes according to their testing. I believe Curtiss also had some build quality issues during the war.

Forthly, Soviet aircraft technology was still behind in terms of basic comfort and convinences for the pilots. Soviet aircraft didn't tend to have all the bells and whistles, moderniation and automation present in German or Western Allied aircraft. Soviet aircraft tended to be relatively more uncomfortable for their pilots, with poor ducting, heating and fume extraction. Perhaps a small point, but still something that counts against them. This plauged some Allied aircraft as well though. The P-38 was notorious for is bad heating system. Typhoon pilots were forced to fly with oxygen massks on at all altitudes because of the possibility of carbon dioxide gasses escaping in to the cockpit. 

Fifth, Soviet armament was excellent, but it had very limited ammo duration and was relatively light compared to that installed on Allied and Aixs fighters. Twin 20mms or 2 HMGs and a single 20mm, all nose mounted, are more than enough to threaten any fighter or light/medium bomber, which is all that Soviet fighters were likely to encounter on their front. However, they dont have the depth of fire time of US fighters. But US aircraft are very much an exception in these terms, generally hauling more weight of ammunition than fighters from any other nation during the war. RAF research showed that a fighter pilot was only likely to expend around 85 rounds of 20mm ammo on any sortie, less than half their total load out. Longer ammo duration is nice to have, but the Soviet reasoning was that extra armament and ammo was useless if a fighter couldn't get behind its opponent. Therefore they went for lighter more nimble fighters, with less firepower, than for heavier fighters with more armament (a la FW-190A, P-47, F4U).

Sixth, Soviet fighter pilot training was of highly variable quality depending o the unit and front they were serving at. Some Soviet pilots recieved 200-300 hours training before going into combat, some recieved as little as 20-30 and were expected to 'learn on the job' as it were. The general standard of German and Allied aviatiors, at least until 1944, were higher then their Soviet counterparts. After this Allied training contiued to improve, while German pilot qualit entered a steady decline.


When you look at the generally established performance of Soviet aircraft in terms of speed, turn, ceiling, climb ect you can see that the late war Soviet fighters are all highly competitive dogfigthers. Not necessarily superior, but competitive. They are, without exception, small, nimble, lightlweight interceptors capable of sucessfully taking on anything thrown against them, if the conditions or right. Below 5000m they come out well against any opponent in WW2, Allied or Axis.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 20, 2005)

Yes they may have been among the finest but there were finer aircraft:
Spitfires
Bf-109G and K
Fw-190A and D
P-51D
P-47D,M and N
P-38L


----------



## 102first_hussars (Nov 20, 2005)

"Funny how all the 'Armchair Experts' never mention Russian aircraft when blathering about the merits of WWII Fighters!! The Party Line seems to be P51s and the 'Also-Rans'." 

Nothing there suggests that We the members of this site are 
"Armchair Experts", its obvious he was talking about people in general so 
dont get your sh*t tied in a knot over it.


And what the fuck are you talking about Erich? My Scottish is F*cking sweet, so heres some more. 

Did ye see the burd wi Paul oan Seturday what a fuckin hogbeast, you could play a roond a golf oan er erse

Glasgow Pigeon: Haw, you! Ya big seagull ye! At's mah bit ah chip paper! 
Seagull: Awa' an shite! An ahm nae a seagull. Ah'm a scurrie! Ah'm a Furrybootian seagull!!
Glasgow pigeon: (says nuhhin bit jist batters the scurrie ower the napper wi an Irn Bru boaatle.) Welcome tae Glesga!!! Haw Haw!

NS you might like this one 

See that Senga wi the big diddies? She wid shag ye for a fish supper, so she would.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 20, 2005)

102first_hussars said:


> dont get your sh*t tied in a knot over it.



The same could be said of you some times.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Nov 20, 2005)

102first_hussars said:


> NS you might like this one
> 
> See that Senga wi the big diddies? She wid shag ye for a fish supper, so she would.


I haven't got the first f*cking clue what you just said.


----------



## Erich (Nov 20, 2005)

Hussars :

Ni' he' la' na ba'isti' la' na bpa'isti'


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 20, 2005)

Okay that was just jibberish to me.


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 20, 2005)

Mayama Gogface and a banana patch...


----------



## Erich (Nov 20, 2005)

sorry Adler but if Hussars thinks he is speaking Gaelic I thought I would oblige him. I'm not part of the Lamont clan for nothing..........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 20, 2005)

LOL


----------



## Erich (Nov 20, 2005)

at least I did NOT respond negatively like "kiss my ass" .............


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 20, 2005)

Very Very true.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Nov 20, 2005)

Nonskimmer said:


> 102first_hussars said:
> 
> 
> > NS you might like this one
> ...



Ok Ill Translate it for yah.

See that hot young Glaswegian with the huge titties? Shed Fuck you for for a Clam Chowder meal dude, No joke


----------



## Nonskimmer (Nov 20, 2005)

I see. Y'know even though Nova Scotia means "New Scotland", very, very few people speak Gaelic nowadays, and nobody speaks with a Scottish accent. There might be a few folks left in the Cape Breton Highlands who still speak the old lingo, but that would be about it. Although there is the Gaelic College in Cape Breton. There are actually people who come from Scotland to Cape Breton to learn Gaelic. 
Supposedly, Scottish culture is more prevalent in Cape Breton than in Scotland these days. Or so they say.


----------



## Erich (Nov 20, 2005)

all I can say Leutnant Garner is you need an attitude check.......

Go n-ithe an cat thu' is go n-ithe an diabhal an cat


----------



## 102first_hussars (Nov 20, 2005)

Away an stoap bumpin yer gums ya bletherin auld skite.


(Not Translation)Anyway I dont know or have claimed to know Gaelic, I can (Through voice not typing) impersonate a Scotsman quite well.

I think Clearly the P-51 is the best fighter of WW2, regardless of what its problems were it had accounted for the most kills.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 21, 2005)

in terms of ability the D is outclassed by many planes, it's saving grace is it's war record and the fact that is was good enough and could be built in large numbers.............


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 21, 2005)

Dont forget that in 1944, the P51's many of them were being flown by experienced pilots that (usually) knew how to extract the best from it.

Plus there were so many of them, they could afford to protect and look out for the rookies so they too, could become experienced pilots.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Nov 21, 2005)

Yeah that was a great thing about the P-51 was its simplicity, you could send a nugget up in one and he could do quite a bit of damage to the bad guys.


I took this at an Airshow in Sarnia Ontario in 2002


----------



## elmilitaro (Nov 21, 2005)

nice model!!


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 21, 2005)

That isn't a model it is a real plane...


----------



## evangilder (Nov 21, 2005)

Sorry, but I wouldn't call that a midget mustang. Non-retractable gear and no scoop on the bottom. Now _these_ are mini-mustangs:


----------



## JonJGoldberg (Nov 21, 2005)

Reply to evangilder >>>
Wow! They are great! I vote for a new topic. I like the top one better.


To All>>>
...Since I'm at the top of the page, Sorry guys, fighter table attached. Only 14 or 15 of you downloaded last time, so...


----------



## evangilder (Nov 21, 2005)

Well, I don't think it's a question of which is better. I don't know, nor does it really matter. I think they're both cool.


----------



## JonJGoldberg (Nov 21, 2005)

...no it doesn't matter. Kidding. They made me smile...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 22, 2005)

102first_hussars said:


> I think Clearly the P-51 is the best fighter of WW2, regardless of what its problems were it had accounted for the most kills.



You absolutely sure about that. I may be wrong however how can the P-51 account for the most kills when the top 3 Bf-109 pilots alone shot down 922 aircraft. 922 aircraft alone. Then there are hundreds of more pilots with kills many of them over a 100 themselves. Again I might be wrong here but maybe just maybe you want to check that statement of yours.


----------



## elmilitaro (Nov 22, 2005)

Gnomey said:


> That isn't a model it is a real plane...





Sorry.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Nov 23, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> 102first_hussars said:
> 
> 
> > I think Clearly the P-51 is the best fighter of WW2, regardless of what its problems were it had accounted for the most kills.
> ...



Accounted for the most Luftwaffe kills I meant to say, about 15000 Luftwaffe planes out the 33000 total the U.S shot down.


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 23, 2005)

As far as I can remember the B-17 accounted for the most kills in the ETO with around 12000 I think, I will be corrected if I am wrong though.


----------



## evangilder (Nov 23, 2005)

15,000? Umm, no. The generally accepted number for the P-51 for kills is 4,950. If you count ground attack kills, the number grows, but still doesn't get to 15,000. The ground attacks allegedly destroyed about 4,100 aircraft on the ground.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 23, 2005)

There you go Even that was the number I was looking for. Did the P-51 really shoot down the most Luftwaffe planes though? I really dont know which aircraft did but I know it was not 15,000 like Hussars is saying. Anyhow, let me go and get my stuffing at put it in the fridge. I am getting things ready for Turkey Day tomorrow.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 23, 2005)

Here are some numbers that I came up with doing some searches:

P-51: 4,950 air kills, 4,131 ground kills and 230 V-1 kills
P-47: 3,916 air kills, 3,916 ground kills
P-38: 3,916 air kills, 749 ground kills

So yes I would say that the P-51D had the most kills for the USAAF. I will not say allies yet since I have not found kills for the British with there Spitfires yet. 

I am also doing a search for the Luftwaffe kills by each aircraft type and so far have come up with nothing. My be though is that the Bf-109 has shot down the most aircraft in WW2. When 4 pilots that flew the 109 can come up with a 4th of the total of all aircraft shot down by P-51's then that would be my guess.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Nov 23, 2005)

Gnomey said:


> As far as I can remember the B-17 accounted for the most kills in the ETO with around 12000 I think, I will be corrected if I am wrong though.[/quote
> 
> All AAF heavy bombers in the ETO are credited with 6108 kills, from August 1942 through to May 1945. There is also some suggestion that this figure may well be far too high, as bomber gunner kill claims were often credited to multiple gunners, multiple times.
> 
> ...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 23, 2005)

I will buy that.


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 23, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I will buy that.


So would I. Thanks for clearing that up Jabberwocky, I can't remember where I got that figure.


----------



## wmaxt (Nov 23, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Here are some numbers that I came up with doing some searches:
> 
> P-51: 4,950 air kills, 4,131 ground kills and 230 V-1 kills
> P-47: 3,916 air kills, 3,916 ground kills
> ...



I wouldn't mind seeing some sources, the AAF Statistics people sent me a regretfuly those numbers are not kept seperately by model aifcraft, letter. They are willing to send micro-fich at $30 a roll (several hundred) so I can look myself.

Those numbers were also revised from 1957 and all records were not present. The P-38 had been credited with 5,734 in the Pacific at the end of the war that was reduced to less than 2,000? in '57. I have also seen higher numbers for P-38 ground kills. The P-38 numbers I see flashed around are 608 MTO, and 1,771 ETO. I have not found a reliable number for the PTO after the revision for even just the P-38. 

I also have not found a shread of evidence verifying any of those numbers for instance the Air Force official total kills, by fighters, for WWII are 15,863.6 by fighter aircraft (AAF Statistics Group Maxwell AFB). When I add those numbers normaly given and that number, 12,782 for the planes above, falls short.

When I add the normal numbers given for AAF aircraft shot down P-38 1,758, P-51 2,520, P-47 3,077, P-40 553, P-39 107 = 8,105, just in the ETO, it's just under 3,000 aircraft more that the AAF statistics group at Maxwell AFB gives out, 5,324, for total fighter A/C lost in the ETO from all causes.

The numbers don't tell the whole story either ie. which plane was there in numbers/time, which plane had greater numbers of opponents and what was the expertise of those opponents? I don't have an answer for it and what I have seen no one else is any closer than that.

wmaxt


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 23, 2005)

I am not 100 pecent sure those figures up there are accurate either. I just posted what I found over a quick search. All I know is the P-51 did not shoot down 15000 aircraft all by itself.


----------



## wmaxt (Nov 23, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I am not 100 pecent sure those figures up there are accurate either. I just posted what I found over a quick search. All I know is the P-51 did not shoot down 15000 aircraft all by itself.



Agreed and understood. I just get tired of people thinking that the numbers tell the whole story when situation/conditions/timing are more important in war for most issues like these.

I would like to see where those came from I am still trying to sort this sh** myself. 

wmaxt


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 23, 2005)

wmaxt said:


> DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
> 
> 
> > I am not 100 pecent sure those figures up there are accurate either. I just posted what I found over a quick search. All I know is the P-51 did not shoot down 15000 aircraft all by itself.
> ...



I could not agree more with you. That is a big argument that I have with people also on here that think that numbers are the bible when they dont realize that there is more to it than just that and 90% of the time the numbers are not accurate anyhow because they are just what the military posts for them but the aircraft can actually fly better than those numbers.

To be honest I do not remember the sites. I just flipped through and took some numbers. It really was a quick search.


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 23, 2005)

Can I explain something for everybody??? There will NEVER be an accurate accounting of air to air kills for ANY country... The wasnt an accurate counting back in 1944-45, let alone 2004-2005....

So sitting here trying to discuss the number of kills per aircraft is just like kissing ur cousin.... Whatever numbers u decide on are about as wrong as they can get... I dont put much faith in the totals of "Official" kills....

The Germans' OKL, responsible for the verification of claims, was extremely picky in their criteria for recognition of a confirmed kill, and they messed up so often its not funny... On some nights, JG 300 would claim 4 bombers destroyed, with witnesses and wreckage, and the kills would not be confirmed... 

Comeon... Guys, dont get hung up on numbers... U can use them as a broad canvas, but nothing more...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 23, 2005)

Could not agree more.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 23, 2005)

lesofprimus said:


> ..........So sitting here trying to discuss the number of kills per aircraft is just like kissing ur cousin....



ewwwww


----------



## Nonskimmer (Nov 23, 2005)

What's so bad about that?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 23, 2005)

Alright now I will seay eeewww!


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 23, 2005)

> lesofprimus wrote:
> ..........So sitting here trying to discuss the number of kills per aircraft is just like kissing ur cousin....





> syscom wrote:
> ewwwww


LMFAO....


----------



## JonJGoldberg (Nov 23, 2005)

Reply to lesofprimus >>
 

Reply to Wmaxt >>
At $30 a fish, what are you getting into? A lot of work, for probably nothing. I agree with Les ( to be frank, you are saying the same thing), the numbers you will receive will be 'official' about as valid as, well Les said it best. I also agree with you with regard to 'circumstance' its impact, so what are you doing? What would be the point of this search?


----------



## 102first_hussars (Nov 23, 2005)

Nonskimmer said:


> What's so bad about that?




Now you just sound like a Newfy, (Hooy Moi Moothers Moi Seester) Try saying that


----------



## evangilder (Nov 24, 2005)

Gents, I did say the _generally accepted_ number was 4,950. I don't have an accurate count, nor does the US Army. You have to kind of go with a generally accepted number as a reasonable guess.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 24, 2005)

Yes you do even...


----------



## JonJGoldberg (Nov 28, 2005)

Message to all >>>
Wow, I've been occupied on the F4U-4 vs. P-47N thread, haven't missed much.

Sorry, there has been quite a bit of action, at least for me, there recently at this exact moment I'm a bit fired up, so, accept my apoligy in advance for the tone. The reason for the post is to inform of some changes to the Fighter Comparison Tables.

Edited from (http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/about1116-0-asc-100.html) >>>

New Table outlines, as taken from an exchange with Wmaxt 11/26/2005 7:28:10 PM Eastern Standard Time:

I haven't posted my last response to Sal, although I read his post; from this experience, some experience now with you, as they regard to some or all of the performance data (for example the climb rate data)... I'm going to re-label the following headers, Horizontal Limits, Vertical Limits with the following: {@ Projected Combat Weight (Actual value given was calculated checked to be within the 'window' of 'reliable' specifications, when available)}. I'm going to update all 'Combat Weight' figures to read 'Calculated Combat Weight'. I will update all notes to include the amount of 'points' in question. 

This should allow me to address data inconsistencies, limit mandated changes as proposed by other's measurements, documents, or other materials, to changes that I may accept, or pass, in a much less condescending light. At this point, again not to be stubborn, condescending, arrogant or rude; due to the inconsistencies of data values from the best of sources, I must both identify where I have used, continue to rely on, my own judgment. 

Again, thanks for staying with me, there is a lot to read here. Maybe next weekend, with or with out Sal’s data, to better serve all I will post the new tables. PS: been working with Wmaxt in resolving, and including firing range. If we can acquire this data, this new feature should bring us that much closer.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 28, 2005)

Jon, it almost sounds like sub catagories are needed...... like best at mid altitude/mid speeds, mid alt/high speeds, high alt/mid speeds, high alt/high speeds.

I think youve put forth some convincing data that the P47N was the best.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 28, 2005)

It almost sounds like someone needs to stop taking things so seriously and not fired up.


----------



## JonJGoldberg (Nov 29, 2005)

With regard to my previous post, please see my latest post below. It is quite an interesting view, with regard to the Fighter Comparison Tables.

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=137454#137454


----------



## JonJGoldberg (Dec 14, 2005)

Is it possible that a ‘match’ between WW2 fighters can be confined to altitude ‘X’, assuming that one or the other contestant isn’t wiped out on the first pass? Mostly, it’s not possible, as I’ll go wherever I feel my opportunity waits. However, as I’m a great pilot in reality, flying my genuine authentic IKEA power recliner while on sim fighter patrol in my assigned Ta-152, I sight on this cloudless pixilated day some P-47s strafing. Do I dive to engage, hoping my specialized wings stay together as my altitude decreases until I’m in air that does not allow me to turn; or do I wait, in the sun, until I may take advantage, hoping to position myself inline with the ‘47s, bringing them to me as they climb to go home?

Is a plane that climbs at 3,000 fpm, when its adversary climbs at 4,000 fpm, at a disadvantage, when the plane that climbs at 3,000 fpm can maintain climb angles keeping its guns on the target? Even though this 33% improvement is significant numerically, mostly it’s of no, or of little advantage, unless your pursuer was either way far away, or too dam close. As we separate at about 11 mph, if I’m on your tail I have 10 seconds +/- 5 seconds to rip you up. If you’re on my tail, I’ll use this knowledge, nose up turn into you, forcing you to disengage, or over shoot. You may kill me as I nose up turn into you, but hey you are on my tail, I’m dead if I don’t, if my craft was the better climber, by 1000 fpm at our combat altitude, do I offer you 10 seconds +/- 5 to rip me a new… I think not.

Will a pilot, who knows his mount is not a turn/stall fighter, change his proven zoom boom tactics, to turn/stall fight an adversary even if the foe is a multi-engine bomber out of bullets? No I think not. As I’m in control, I may press reset at any moment, I will attempt to use my weapon as effectively as possible, making a wide turn, catching my target, engaging at my decision, not the decision of circumstance, especially that of a pixilated circumstance. 

What am I getting at here?

Well, as I’ve participated in this thread that of the P-47N vs. F4U-4, debate over participation in other threads; I’ve learned a great deal, that was/is my intention. Similarly, I’ve repaid, creating, I think, a great tool, or starting point for us to play with; but I’m frustrated a bit on two levels.

1- Unfortunately not may people downloaded, or participated in the exchanges I tried to generate by producing the tables (My Fighter Comparison Chart). Although I’m going to continue again shortly after the New Year, as their evolution data has produced marked improvements into my CFS-2 install, unless you guys ask, there will be no further postings. The tables are far from perfect. For instance, the Ta-152 would be annihilated in them, as it doesn’t perform at sea level, at all. Sea level response is the anchor to my turn rate calculations, as sea level data is the most readily available data. I’d like to thank Erich, wmaxt for the very helpful E-mail exchanges; Jabberwocky for the data corrections; syscom3, FLYBOYJ for their general support; DerAdlerIstGelandet, plan_D, Gnomey, evangilder, lesofprimus for the constructive criticism. To Sal Monella, in retrospect, the personal stuff aside, I had some serious fun, learned a great deal during the course of our exchanges, so thanks. Parmigiano, what ever happened to you?

2- My 1st three paragraphs represent what I view on these threads, in conclusion to most digressions; ‘members’ stating that plane X is better at medium altitudes than plane Y, or it climbs better, or performs better in a turn fight. All important aspects to be sure, but not overall the right approach to determining which was best in my opinion, rather, I feel it perpetuates this circular exchange among us, prevents us from moving past, quoting the lancaster kicks ass, “…it all comes down to what you look for in a fighter.”

Well now I’m thinking we are all wrong. My vote for the P-51 most other posts I’ve seen avoid this plane, except those dam tables again. As flawed as they are they show, as does the info found below, the answer was in front of us all along.

Edited from an article which can be found, beginning at http://www.stormbirds.com/squadron/home.htm

“Some of the most unnerving German advances to emerge late in the war were embodied in the jet aircraft; especially the Messerschmitt 262 fighter. While the forces of the Wehrmacht were in a full retreat across the continent, this sleek warbird was a cause for great alarm among the Allies. At a time when the rest the world's jet aircraft were little more than docile test beds,* the Me 262 was sweeping the sky for intruding bomber formations. The potential for disaster had not gone unnoticed.”
“Of course, aggressive exploitation plans had been put into motion many months before V-E day. In the Army Air Forces, this gave rise to the Air Technical Intelligence (ATI) division. Charged with mounting an all-out dragnet for advanced weapons of all types, ATI operations were primarily focused upon a classified "blacklist" of priority targets. At the top of every list was the Messerschmitt 262. Field contact teams generally were finding little outside of a few wrecked jets. What was really needed was a collection of flyable examples.”
“* The Gloster Meteor (UK) and Bell P-59 (US) were both operational during this period; however, neither of these aircraft were considered ready for front-line combat service, and neither established an operational service record approaching that of the Me 262.”

“What made the Me 262 such a force to be reckoned with? The most obvious -- and relevant -- answer lies in it's blinding speed. In 1944-45, the North American P-51 Mustang was among the quickest and most agile performers in the Allied arsenal. In a clean configuration (without drop tanks), it's top speed was in the neighborhood of 440 miles per hour with "everything wide open except the toolbox." 
“By way of contrast, when the Me 262 joined the battle in the skies over Europe, it was capable of passing through a bomber formation at 540 mph with relative ease. This gave it a speed advantage over Allied escort fighters of between 100 and 150 miles per hour, and rendered traditional tactics ineffective.” 
“Many U.S. bomber crews began to complain that, when they attempted to track the Me 262 from their defensive positions, the electric gun turrets could not slew fast enough to keep up with the Stormbird.”
“The weapons fitted to the aircraft were no less impressive. The standard Me 262 carried four Mk 108 30mm cannons in the nose, and was later equipped with R4M 50mm rockets mounted on racks under the wings. Both were devastatingly effective against any adversary, and Stormbird pilots ran their scores up quickly against the American bomber formations.”

Now, as with any aircraft, there were problems weaknesses, but…

Bob Strobell
“My first solo flight in the Me 262 started with a pilot error on takeoff. Somewhere in the back of my mind I got the impression that swept wings required a higher angle of attitude on takeoff. It must have come from watching Baur make his takeoff. About halfway down the runway, all was going well, except that I noticed that I was gaining flight speed slowly, if at all! Everything was roaring along just fine, except the airspeed was not up to takeoff, and didn't appear to be increasing as rapidly as expected. At this point I lowered the nose and put the nose wheel on runway. I was doing something like 70 or 80 miles per hour, and up came the airspeed ... I found myself at the end of the runway, and I simply hauled it off of the ground, feeling that I had used all 6,000 feet of a 5,000 foot runway. One is not likely to forget such an adventure, and I still think about that rough trip down that runway as the watched the end approach .. both mine and the runway's.”
“The next thing I noticed was the speed. Raw speed, exhilarating speed. Smooth speed. Unbelievable speed. It seemed effortless. My flight was held to low altitude, so I had the ground as a reference. This was something I had never experienced in the P-47 Thunderbolt, and it was impressive.”
“When it came time to return to Lechfeld to make a landing, I committed my second pilot error. I made a normal "P-47 approach" to the landing by entering the downwind leg. I was planning for a quick left turn onto base and then final, but I never got out of the downwind leg! Normally, with a Thunderbolt, you would pull the throttle back on the downwind leg, drop the gear, and make a U-turn back toward the runway controlling speed with the throttle while descending to touchdown.” 
“In the Me 262, I pulled the throttle back and nothing happened. I mean that there was no apparent reaction from the airplane. It simply continued to fly at the same speed, and I recall thinking that I had discovered "perpetual speed." By the time I figured out that I wasn't on a normal jet approach, I was five miles beyond the airfield, and still headed outbound at high speed. The airport had long since disappeared from sight! We had been cautioned not to reduce the turbine below 6000 RPM in the traffic pattern, but it seemed that this only encouraged the jet to continue to fly at cruising speed.”
“I finally turned back toward the airport and again entered the downwind leg at 500 feet. But this time I had figured things out, or so I thought. I pulled the RPM back to 6000 and pointed the nose up in a climb attitude. The airspeed dropped to 250 MPH, at which point the landing gear could be lowered safely. I managed all of this with my head my head inside the cockpit, so you can imagine my surprise when I discovered I was at 2,500 feet and again several miles from the airport. I continued around for a third and final approach, and landed without incident.”
“It remains an indelible event in my memory.”
Lieutenant Roy W. Brown
“The Me 262 was smooth, quiet, and very responsive to the controls compared to the P-47 I had been flying for about a year. I had also flown a P-40 in the States, and the Me 262 was even better than that.” 
“The plane was easy -- and a pleasure -- to fly. Because of its high speed, I found myself going through my maps quickly to keep pace with the distance covered over the ground.”

The site has more great stuff on Watson’s Wizzers, USAF pilots, and ground crews responsible in acquiring, then bringing to flight condition, testing finally storing all flyable examples of any jet, top prize, Me-262s.

To end… My arguments previously posted proclamations about the P-51, Hurricane as rightful owner runner up to the best fighter title I now retract. I retract my statements about MVPs having to come from the ‘wining team’. I was in error, I was wrong. 

The Me 262 was not so much "ahead of it's time" as it was the harbinger of an entirely new era in aviation, which I now concede as historically of more value than the fighter most responsible for winning a battle, or theater, regardless of the terrible philosophy practiced by some of its creators. Additionally, the Me-262 held clear performance edges of unmatched speed, unmatched firepower. …The amount of effort expended by the Allies, Soviets, as it is hard to believe just the Americans were interested in the finding, securing, rebuilding, testing of Me-262s, is the final testimony of its status, Best Fighter Of WW2.


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 14, 2005)

nice post Jon.

But it had its defects. High fuel consumption, poor engine life, engine sensitivity to damage


----------



## JonJGoldberg (Dec 14, 2005)

Thanks syscom3.
All aircraft have defects, all. Preliminary reading suggests that engines produced before 'high strength' steels were of short supply, allocated to the U-Boats 1st, before engine parts were redesigned to use metals of lower strength, they were much more reliable.
But there were other weaknesses, you can read there that she was defeated when lured into a turn fight, when landing, on take off, at low altitude, where the engines didn't work well.
Battle dammage is a valid point, but overcomeable in 'development' my newborn opinion.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 16, 2005)

Jon I found your posts very very interesting and enjoyed reading them and posted some comments here and there. I just chose not to completly get involved because I did not care to compare aircraft based off of data from sims.


----------



## JonJGoldberg (Dec 16, 2005)

Reply to DerAdlerIstGelandet >>>

Thank You. Since I can't fly a real one...

But something is tickling me. I don't understand what you said... "I did not care to compare aircraft based off of data from sims." 

Absolutely no data came from any sim. They are drawn from books, web sites, other 'source' materials (no games/sims). The spread sheet used to calculate turn data, verify climb data, altitude data was designed to allow acceptance of the tip root air foil information (NACA labels), engine HP at sea level, prop diameter, number of blades, critical altitude, loaded weights, aircraft dimensions... , and runs calculations based on these inputs, my inputs. Then the spread sheet uses NACA wind tunnel data to calculate lift and drag parameters for the airfoils. The engineering data and formulas used to calculate propeller efficiency, climb rates, roll rates, and stability parameters were drawn from the NACA database as well. After the data is loaded, the author (Jerry Beckwith) provides an activation 'cell' which runs the math engine turning out 'code', representing the crucial figures needed to generate...

I do two things... Run an Access pivot table, of my design, to restate the results into 'a form' we can understand. Run the accompanying .exe that converts the data into a CFS-2/FS-2000 .air file.

As for opinion, well, you have a point here; it must be somewhat based on my flight sim. You may not agree on how I derived an opinion, but the 'real' pilots here, you yourself, to your own disbelief, have agreed on the opinion, most times. At others, I've either defended my view, or admitted error, acted as a 'responsible' forum member.

As you said, I'm really into this. I'm not a pilot, have no collage education. I was born on windows '95. I'm no kid, as I write this I'm 45. I know I'm a bit tilted, extreme, but this is my 'fun'. Numbers specs just don't do it for me, lifeless on screen paper. Why not 'animate' them?

To conclude: Based on what I've seen of your posts, you I derive data from the same sources; reliable not so reliable. You use data reason to draw conclusions dream (I really don't mean this in a negative way at all). I use data reason to draw conclusions 'animate' sim aircraft.


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 16, 2005)

Jon, I agree with you. Its all a matter of crunching numbers based on well known mathmatical formula's.

Id say your data is accurate to withing a few percentage points of actual performance. And the margin of error is so slight as to be meaningless in a real world situation.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 18, 2005)

Jon I may have misunderstood you then. I thought you were taking this data from Sims. I apologize.

I however do not dream about flying.......


----------



## JonJGoldberg (Dec 18, 2005)

I should have written this...

To conclude: Based on what I've seen of your posts, you I derive data from the same sources; reliable not so reliable. You use the data about WW2 aircraft reason to draw conclusions dream (I really don't mean this in a negative way at all). I use the data about WW2 aircraft reason to draw conclusions 'animate' sim aircraft.

I didn't mean to imply dreaming of flying in general, or weather or not you have flown, or have flown WW2 aircraft, just what we do with the data.
Sorry


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 18, 2005)

I use the data to learn.


----------



## JonJGoldberg (Dec 18, 2005)

...Now who's gotta lighten up?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 19, 2005)

If you are referring to me, I dont need to lighten up....


----------



## JonJGoldberg (Jan 31, 2006)

...Are the tables correct? Is it the Me-262 best, followed by the P-47N? Are the best fighters of WW2 to be found in Germany the USA? How many think the tables should be amended to show low med high altitudes? Should the gun tables be amended? Is it not about the tables?


----------



## Twitch (Feb 5, 2006)

Well since my 2¢ is as good as any one's here is my reasoning for one particular plane. Note it has nothing to do with ultimate performance or weapons or total kills. It was instrumental in turning the air war around-

P-51
There are other famous WW II America fighters like the P-40 of the Flying Tigers. Some will say the P-47 Thunderbolt should make the list and there are no Navy planes either. But the true turning point of WW II came with the debut of the P-51 Mustang in that its long-range escort ability saved the Allied bomber offensive from obliteration. As things were going about the time of the Schweinfurt Raids in mid-to-late 1943, the US was seriously considering ceasing large daylight bombing operations due to extensive losses. 

P-51s truly brought the war to Germany like the bomber alone could not do. Before it the Luftwaffe knew exactly when the P-47s and or Spitfires had to turn back and were waiting to intercept the bombers. As mentioned, losses were high. The Mustangs were able to tag along to any European or Pacific target, no matter how distant, giving the protection of their guns to their “Big Friends” as they stuck close. Once the tide was turning the P-51s were unleashed to pursue enemy fighters on any terms encountered. 

Mustangs were as maneuverable or more so than FW 190s or Bf 109s they met in most circumstances. While the Bs and Cs had four .50s with a total of 1,260 rounds, the D and later models had six guns with 1,880 rounds of API- armor-piercing incendiary ammo. Plus with the Merlin that replaced the original Allison V-12, the planes were faster with a 437-MPH top speed than most German planes but for a handful. The late-war P-51H seen in the closing stages of the Pacific could manage 487 MPH.

After WW II they served in Air National Guard units and bore much of the ground attack war in Korea. Many saw use in small air forces around the world and some were even revamped in the 1980s for counter insurgency roles. All models’ production totaled around 14,000 aircraft.


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 5, 2006)

Just out of curiosity, was the Mustang a difficult plane to learn to fly and dogfight? It seems from this discussion that it could be quite a difficult plane to handle if you got out of its envelope.

Plus its peak performance band was narrow, and that meant you needed top notch pilots with considerable air time to instinctively know how to keep it within that band of performance.


----------



## JonJGoldberg (Feb 5, 2006)

Hello welcome Twitch. Your posting brought a  to my face. When I joined, I posted something similar, heck almost exactly this. My view has grown. Welcome!!! I for one admire your position, invite you to read back...


----------



## wmaxt (Feb 6, 2006)

Twitch said:


> Well since my 2¢ is as good as any one's here is my reasoning for one particular plane. Note it has nothing to do with ultimate performance or weapons or total kills. It was instrumental in turning the air war around-
> 
> P-51
> But the true turning point of WW II came with the debut of the P-51 Mustang in that its long-range escort ability saved the Allied bomber offensive from obliteration. As things were going about the time of the Schweinfurt Raids in mid-to-late 1943, the US was seriously considering ceasing large daylight bombing operations due to extensive losses.
> ...



First on Aug 25, 43 just after the First Schweinfurt raid P-38s flew a 1,000mi escort from Africa to Italy.
Second Long range escort in the ETO started in Nov 43 by P-38s - the first P-51 escort was late December 43.
Third P-51s did not reach 50/50 with the P-38s until late May 44, all through the first part of 44 when the odds were up to 10 to 1 and experiance in favor of the German defenders the P-38s were carring 50% or more of the load. Without the P-38s the bombing campain would have been interupted for at least 6-9 months.

Further The P-38 was the AAF fighter in the Med and the Pacific and took part in every major campain in both. The P-38 also split its efforts to include ground attack for roughly half its sorties. The P-51 was only really succesful in the ETO escort roll.

I recomend these articles in the Planes and Pilots of WWII web page under the heading Der Gableschwanze Tueful and the other P-38 and even the F4U-4 article. Also the other articals on the Flying Tigers and Republic Avaition that include the P-47 are not only great but revelent in comparing the P-51 and its abilities. 
http://home.att.net/~C.C.Jordan/index.html

The P-51 had its place, certainly, and made a great contrbution but it was not indispensable, and did not carry the air war on its own even in the ETO.

wmaxt


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 10, 2006)

Twitch said:


> Mustangs were as maneuverable or more so than FW 190s or Bf 109s they met in most circumstances.



Most certainly not more maneuverable than a Fw-190 and in a one on one fight it was maybe only slightly better than a 109. 



Twitch said:


> the planes were faster with a 437-MPH top speed than most German planes but for a handful.



Lets see:

*Ar-240C-0:* 730km/h (454 mph)

*Do-335:* 413 mph (665 kph) sustained, 477 mph (765km/h) with emergency boost

*Ta-152:* 695km/h (431mph) at 10,500m (34,451 ft.)
750km/h (466mph) at 9,000m (29,529 ft.) with MW-50
760km/h (472mph) at 12,500m (41,012 ft.) with MW-50 and GM-1

*Fw-190D:* 440mph (704km/h)

*He-162:* 30 Second Thrust Rating
553 mph (890 kph) at sea level
562 mph (905 kph) at 19,690 ft (6,000m)
525 mph (845 kph) at 36,090 ft (11,000m)

At normal maximum thrust
491 mph (790 kph) at sea level
521 mph (838 kph) at 19,690 ft (6,000m)
475 mph (765 kph) at 36,090 ft (11,000m)

*Bf-109K-4:* 452 mph at 19,685 ft.

*Me-163:* 452 mph at 19,685 ft.

*Me-262:* 540mph (870km/h)

*Ho-229:* 607mph (977km/h)

Thats more than a handful to me, and that is just the fighters and destroyers.

The main advantages of the P-51 were the fact that it could take the fight to the Germans and the fact that it had numerical superiority. 150 P-51s vs. 20 Fw-190s, who do you think is going to win? The P-51 was not the most maneuverable and not the best fighter. It was a great escort fighter and probably the best at that role.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 10, 2006)

Great Info Adler!!


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 10, 2006)

And a great way of making a point.... Cheers....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 10, 2006)

Besides max speed is not everything when it comes to being a fighter. You have to out turn your opponant and get an advantage on him.


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 10, 2006)

I will say this though, the ability to accelerate when ur opponent is slowing down is extremely important in combat... It all revolves around that great statistic, thrust to weight ratio...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 10, 2006)

Yeap that is true however.


----------



## Twitch (Feb 15, 2006)

Throwing a bunch of book statistics has no weight in the real world. Lots of planes that were better on paper got flamed in the real world. Most of the planes listed with greater top speeds were never met in combat and even the vaunted 262 could be killed under the right circumstances by Spitfire and Mustangs alike.(not just rat catching sorties either) Top speed has almost nothing to do with actual kill ratios. Top speed of the Mustang was quite adequate and that is sufficient as is. How many of the German planes listed could fly from Berlin to Debden, go up against the local home boys on equal terms and fly home again?

And there are way too many instances of combats that took place one on one between 190s, 109s and P-51 where the P-51s matched them in every way and emerged victorious. And even so turn rate is not the end all since every ace out there on all sides overwhelmingly mostly made single firing passes to kill enemies than to get into roundy-round dogfights. By the time the Mustang hit the bomberstream air combat had nothing to do with that. You know that!

The P-51 had the biggest effect on the course of the war after they were introduced than any fighter before it. The P-38 simply did not excell in the ETO. Frankly it was a fair weather bird. It could escort long distances but didn't dominate the air combats it was in. There's nothing wrong with saying there were later lots of Mustangs. At one time 109s existed in larger number compared to their opponents. So? Initially there weren't hordes of P-51s though but they functioned quite well simply being over Berlin with the Big Friends.

It is the way the vast majority of people delving into history see the P-51 as the icon of change in the airwar against the Luftwaffe. Sure we know about Gabby, Johnson and Zemke in P-47s and we know their frustration of limitations. There weren't enough P-38s available to ride herd on the bomber stream. 

The P-51 was the 1st fighter to fly for hours escorting heavies to the target, be able to engage anything the Luftwaffe threw at it and not be embarrassed by lack of performance or weaponry, fly home and beat up target of opportunity along the way on a regular basis in growing numbers.

The Luftwaffe pilots all pretty much acknowledge the P-51 as the best enemy fighter. Most aces scores just took off when they got the Mustang. The P-51 went to the Pacific and did just as well against another enemy. P-47s and P-38 did NOT excell in all theaters as did the Mustang. 

To go one step further I'd say to be fair the Zero and the Bf 109 are respectively the best of the war as well, no matter that there were faster of more heavily armed or whatever that allegedly replaced them.


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 15, 2006)

The P38 was holding up fairly well when it was the only long range fighter available in the ETO. Untill there was a change in tactics, all 8th AF fighters were held close to the bombers and not allowed ot go "hunting". That kept its kills low.

The P51 was a late comer to the PTO. Very few kills were achieved by this plane simply because the P38's and Hellcats had already swept the skies.

Are you serious about the Zero? Good plane for most of 1942, but far far far outclassed by 1944.


----------



## Hunter368 (Feb 15, 2006)

Twitch said:


> Throwing a bunch of book statistics has no weight in the real world. Lots of planes that were better on paper got flamed in the real world. Most of the planes listed with greater top speeds were never met in combat and even the vaunted 262 could be killed under the right circumstances by Spitfire and Mustangs alike.(not just rat catching sorties either) Top speed has almost nothing to do with actual kill ratios. Top speed of the Mustang was quite adequate and that is sufficient as is. How many of the German planes listed could fly from Berlin to Debden, go up against the local home boys on equal terms and fly home again?
> 
> And there are way too many instances of combats that took place one on one between 190s, 109s and P-51 where the P-51s matched them in every way and emerged victorious. And even so turn rate is not the end all since every ace out there on all sides overwhelmingly mostly made single firing passes to kill enemies than to get into roundy-round dogfights. By the time the Mustang hit the bomberstream air combat had nothing to do with that. You know that!
> 
> ...



mmmm Where to start here. Stats like Adler said do count, what do they count for ? It proves what is a good plane and what is not a good plane. Can a great pilot fly a average plane and beat a average pilot in a great plane? yes. What the stats prove is facts, thats all Adler is saying. Facts are facts, they are not the end all be all, they are facts. No combat is total even, someone has a advantage. Some of those "facts" could help you out of that disadvantageous position you are in.

The ME262 being shot down by Spit or Stangs sure anyone could shot down in a head on pass, but any pilot would sooner fly a ME262 over either of the other two if everything was equal. Speed kills, 4 30mm guns kill. But you are right any lucky guy in a Spit or Stang could catch a 262 under the right conditions and shot it down, they just needed alittle luck.

P51 matching 109 and 190? sure it is a match. It would be a good fight, who ever was the better pilot or had the first advantage most likely would win.

You say the P51 having the biggest effect on the war, I agree. But not sure if for the same reasons as you. I believe that b/c they could take the war to Germany, before that they could not. P47 and Spit had to short of range. Also P51 was built in huge numbers and was a good plane but not the best ever, sheer numbers (and a decent plane by all standards and limitless trained pilots) meant the end for Germany (air war anyways).

LW aces agreeing that the P51 was the best fighter ? only b/c of its overall balance of assets, including its range that allowed it and its huge numbers to reach Germany anywhere. I have read alot on German pilots and I have felt they feared the P47 and Spit more than anything else. Spit b/c it was a great fighter flown by great pilots, P47 b/c of its speed, guns, and its so tough. Pilots kills started to grow fast not b/c of P51 being a better fighter, it was b/c of its range allowed it to meet more enemy planes. Before then German fighters just stayed out of range of the Spits and P47 when they could. With the P51 it could find the LW planes anywhere, thats why their kill totals grew faster. (not to mention the decreasing skill level of over all LW training and skill).


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 15, 2006)

Twitch said:


> Throwing a bunch of book statistics has no weight in the real world. Lots of planes that were better on paper got flamed in the real world.


True, but its just about the only thing to consider when comparing these aircraft without looking at their historical combat histories...

There are those still around who could provide witness on how these aircraft flew but their numbers are dwindling. You could always rely on those who still operate one of these beasts, but you're only getting a half of story as they are in civilian hands and not operated in the role they were originally conceived in....

But is it is interesting to show what they could do on paper an analyze that against what was actually accomplished. That's what I find fascinating....


----------



## Henk (Feb 15, 2006)

Well I think I will say DerAdlerIstGelandet your list are a great one of aircraft that are liable.

Twitch buddy I must say that the Fw-190 is in my eyes better that the Mustang in certan aspecs. 

The problem wiht the P-51 is that the action that it saw in Europe are not something to talk a lot about, but I must say the P-51 did take the fight into Germany. It did great in the East.

I think that we must have a plane that must be the best fighter of WW2 that never actualy saw action but did fly. Also about the looks of the planes they can be judged about wich one looks the best and will be a great looking fighter.

Then we must have one of fighters that proved they were the best fighters by the combat the saw. 

What do you think?

I think the, Fw-190, Ta-152 were great fighters.

IN the section of fighters that never saw action it must be the Do-335, He-162, Ho-229.

The Me-262 was a great fighter only it had its problems just like the Me-163.

So tell me what you think?

Henk


----------



## Twitch (Feb 16, 2006)

The "best fighter" does not mean the best performance OK? It means it's effect on and place in history. That's why I choose the P-51. It was the catalyst that provided the resolve to continue daylight ops in the ETO. It was a better machine for the average pilot to excel in. It was on equal or better terms in any fight since the 190 and 109s that filled out the Luftwaffe's inventories were not dominant in every aspect such as they were compared to a P-40.

I'm sorry guys but the whole point is not comparing top speed specifications of prototypes that didn't meet P-51s. Is a P-51B/C's top speed of 439 at 25,000 feet blown away by a 190D-9s of 440MPH at 21,653 feet? (Most of the reference sources attribute 426MPH to the D-9 but that's irrelavent as is a small difference in top speeds.) That truly is meaningless and if you know the narratives of pilots on all sides you know that. 

When I said it was eclipsed in speed by a "handful" the your top speed list proves that.

Arado 240- a few prototypes built, project terminated in 1942 well before it ever could have met the P-51 

DO 335- again an scant few prototypes built that never saw action

Ta 152C/Ta 152H- 67 prototypes and pre-production aircraft ever built

FW 190D-9- Enough entered service to be valid at 1,805

Bf 109K-4 great plane, debuted in January 1945, more were lost to bombers than fighters

He 162- a few arrived at a minute to midnite on the Luftwaffe clock had no known encounters with P-51s

He 163- Bomber interceptor 370 built, had few kills against bombers none against P-51s known.

Me 262- a great machine but too few too late

Go 229- 2 prototypes built!

While I will champion the German technology brilliance anytime. There are actually many more fast planes from the Luftwaffe arsenal. We could put the Bachem Natter at 621MPH on there along with the Ju 248 aka Me 263. But looking up stats in a book doesn't begin to tell the story. Top speeds do not automatically place a plane in a "best of" category.

Again it's not whether the 190D-9 had superior performance in some aspects or the 262 was far faster. The Mustang was instrumental, as I believe, in the historical aspect of a placement in history.

This is all opinion anyhow so it matters very little. Hey I'm not an enemy here. 

Henk- let's start a thread about the advanced German designs and see how many we can profile.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 16, 2006)

Twitch said:


> The "best fighter" does not mean the best performance OK? It means it's effect on and place in history. That's why I choose the P-51. It was the catalyst that provided the resolve to continue daylight ops in the ETO. It was a better machine for the average pilot to excel in. It was on equal or better terms in any fight since the 190 and 109s that filled out the Luftwaffe's inventories were not dominant in every aspect such as they were compared to a P-40.



Good points Twitch, you'll find in earlier threads this has been mentioned in several ways - I think the P-51 was somewhat over rated technecally but it was the best over all fighter of WW2 - easily built and flown, it made great pilots from average pilots in a day when combat pilots were mass produced and there was little time for "specially training(a la P-38 ). In talking about slight speed advantages, I've flown simualted aerial combat against aircraft with a 20 MPH advantage and duirng the furball you rarely saw that exploited....


----------



## Hunter368 (Feb 16, 2006)

Twitch said:


> The "best fighter" does not mean the best performance OK? It means it's effect on and place in history. That's why I choose the P-51. It was the catalyst that provided the resolve to continue daylight ops in the ETO. It was a better machine for the average pilot to excel in. It was on equal or better terms in any fight since the 190 and 109s that filled out the Luftwaffe's inventories were not dominant in every aspect such as they were compared to a P-40.
> 
> I'm sorry guys but the whole point is not comparing top speed specifications of prototypes that didn't meet P-51s. Is a P-51B/C's top speed of 439 at 25,000 feet blown away by a 190D-9s of 440MPH at 21,653 feet? (Most of the reference sources attribute 426MPH to the D-9 but that's irrelavent as is a small difference in top speeds.) That truly is meaningless and if you know the narratives of pilots on all sides you know that.
> 
> ...



Twitch you seem to be trying to defend yourself here some what, you don't have to. I never said that you are wrong on anything you said, just not totally agreeing with you 100% either that's all. P51 was a great plane, its just some people think it was the best plane made in WW2. Now it depends, like we both have said, how do you determine or define what is the best plane. You are no enemy, never said you were. Its just very very hard to say "this is the best plane in WW2". It all depends what are you asking that plane to do? Ground attack? Fighter bomber? Pure combat fighter ? Long range? Short Range ? High or low altitude? One vs one? Trained pilots or green pilots? Etc etc


----------



## Twitch (Feb 16, 2006)

Sorry to over react.....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 17, 2006)

Twitch you are correct that paper stats do not prove what aircraft is better than another, I have argued that many, however with the argument that you gave, my paper stats contradicted you and then you got defensive. As Hunter stated you do not have to, we are a friendly bunch here for the most part, just discussing.

However if you actually look at combat reports, losses, and actuall aircraft accounts of maneuverability you will see that your P-51 was just an average of the mill fighter. It was great for escort duties but compared to a Fw-190D it is not the same.

You also can not base a greatness of a fighter off of speed. Do you really think they were dog fighting at 450mph? Nope.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 17, 2006)

> The "best fighter" does not mean the best performance OK? It means it's effect on and place in history



actually i think the best fighter does mean just that, the fighter that proved itself to be the best (with a reasonable number of sorties/kills credited to it), which most of the time means the best stats and views of the aircraft, if you start looking at historical impact you're looking at how great an aircraft is, the P-51 wasn't one of the best fighters of the war, but it is one of the greatest, because of it's impact..........


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 17, 2006)

The best fighter or bomber or transport is rated by the sum of all its parameters. 

For example, you can argue that the P51 wasnt the best in any single thing, but it was good enough in all of them.


----------



## delcyros (Feb 17, 2006)

I am not going to offend anybody here regarding Me-163 and P-51 dogfights.
Just for others to verify:

Me-163 aerial victories, 5th august 1944, around Leipzig: 

P51----Lt. Silcox (352th FG)
P51----Lt. Fernandes (20th FG)
B-17(probable)---(by Lt. Ryll) 

16th of august, area Halle-Leipzig-Brandis:

B-17---(305th BG?) by Fw.Schubert
B-17---(305th BG) by Lt. H. Bolt
B-17---(305th BG) by Fw. Straßnicky (WIA)

24th of august, central Germany:

2 B-17---(379th?BG) by Fw. S. Schubert (made only Me-163 guncam footage)
B-17-----(379th?BG) by Uffz. Schiebler
1 P51----(?FG) around Leuna, Lt. Bolt (another one claimed probable)

10th of september, central Germany:

1 B17---by Lt. Schreiber

11th of september, central Germany:

1 kill---by Lt. Schreiber (7th confirmed kill of 1. /JG400)

6th of october, central Germany:

B-17---(95th BG) -Lt. Schubert (KIA at landing accident)
B-17---(95th BG) -Uffz Bott

There are no records avaiable for nov.44 - march 45. (I count 3 P-51)
Anyway, the P-51 is a good choice.


----------



## Henk (Feb 17, 2006)

Twitch buddy please calm down. Myself or any one else are attacking you.

I must agree with DerAdlerIstGelandet on this one. 

Henk


----------



## JonJGoldberg (Feb 18, 2006)

For Twitch Hunter368, Others,
I find myself both enjoying the exchanges, experiencing ‘flashback’. The excerpts should clarify…

(http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/about962-0-asc-320.html)

Edited From > JonJGoldberg > Posted: Sat Oct 15, 2005 2:33 pm
… “To argue weight be given to sheer performance, or to the ease of manufacture, or to the aircraft’s ability to perform it’s specified task negating it’s actual environment, is, simply nonsense. 

Create ‘Weighted’ awards if you’d like. But the ‘Best’ award should be for the best, period.

Best fighter of WW-2 without question, was/is the North American P-51.” …

… “If I were asked which fighter I was to fly during WW2, it would be …the P-47. Wow, why not the plane I said was the best? …the ‘47’ seems the WW2 package that is most survivable in my eyes. Fast enough to walk away from all except the Me-262, and rare variants of other types, heavily armed, armored, wide landing gear, simple (although not without development problems) powerful, robust, air cooled radial; no fuel in the wings (-N/K the exception); and from all accountings ( stats that I can recall), extremely well made, even the Curtis built ships.”

The replies were quick in coming! I was surprised.

Edited From > plan_D > Posted: Sat Oct 15, 2005 3:11 pm
“I would like to point out that you just contradicted yourself almost throughout that entire posting. You state that the P-51 was the greatest fighter of World War II on the basis that it gives an all-round package. But then move on to wondering if the P-51 would be able to handle itself in other roles.” …

Edited From > lesofprimus > Posted: Sat Oct 15, 2005 5:52 pm
“U know, if the P-40 had the range of the P-51, and flew in as many #'s as the -51, people would be saying the P-40 was the greatest fighter in WW2....”

My response:

Edited From > JonJGoldberg > Posted: Sat Oct 15, 2005 10:44 pm
“…I should have been clearer.... It was better at defeating Fw-190s than the Fw-190 was at defeating bombers. It was better at defeating Me-109s than Me109s were at defeating bombers. Part of the reason the 190s 109s suffered bad or no gas, and or the shortage of supplies and or skilled pilots is because of the ‘51’s contribution. The 190s 109s deserve no handicap due to this ‘hardship’. Their hardships affirm, in my opinion, their inability to ‘handle’ their jobs/circumstance effectively.” …

Basically, I was disappointed with what followed, as it completely bypassed my points...

(http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/about962-0-asc-340.html)

Edited From > DerAdlerIstGelandet > Posted: Sun Oct 16, 2005 12:19 pm
“I completly disagree the P-51D only made such an impact because of the massive amount of numbers that were in the air. Just as Les pointed out if it had been the other way around and P-47's were the most numerous then it would be the P-47 that you are talking about. The P-47 was even a better aircraft all around than the P-51D as was the Fw-190D.”

Edited From > plan_D > Posted: Sun Oct 16, 2005 4:39 pm
“That is hardly a fair comparison for the fighter itself if you're basing it on what the side the said aircraft is on achieved. The Fw-190D was a remarkable interceptor and certainly something the Luftwaffe needed most but because Germany lost the war, it's not the best.” …

Edited From > Gnomey > Posted: Sun Oct 16, 2005 5:33 pm
“Well said pD, I agree also.”

So I got ‘childish’, as I catered to the derailment, replying…

Edited From > JonJGoldberg > Posted: Sun Oct 16, 2005 7:58 pm
“…plan_D…You are fun. Achievements are to be considered especially when talking of the ‘best’, when achievements by the individual contribute in such a manner, as to allow the whole (the team) to achieve. That is an MVP. MVPs are rarely, if ever, chosen form the side of lesser accomplishment (at lest in the States).

Although capable the ’38 required too many parts, pristine service facilities, and suffered severe engine problems in Europe…

The ’47 however, that plane could have, as seen with the ’47 aircraft starting with P-47-D-RE-25, especially the P-47N replaced the ’51 and it is debatable weather or not it could have been as effective…

At a 31,000 dollar or $61,000 savings (Vs the P-47, or P-38, in 1945 dollars) for what appears on paper to be the same thing. Could the US economy absorb this; plus the added cost to operate the ’47, or ‘38? Yep. …These ‘cheap’ escort fighter aircraft (the P-51) do have claim to 1 vital stat. 1 that I didn’t want to mention, as I hate stats. The ’51 by war's end had destroyed 4,950 enemy aircraft in the air, more than any other fighter in Europe.”

This caused a continuation of exchanges dealing with relevant tangents, ‘if what if’ scenarios, the likes. But the most significant reply, to me, was the following…

Edited From > DerAdlerIstGelandet > Posted: Sun Oct 16, 2005 12:19 pm
... “I dont believe aircraft should be judged off of there accomplishments but rather there ability and I am sorry the P-51 was nothing more than a long range escort. The Fw-190, P-47, and Spitfire were all more capable fighters and better. Well atleast me and pD seem to understand this.”

Wow!!! I felt it important to serve as my contribution to the members here, ultimately to render performance ‘envelope’ of any individual fighter as ‘meaningless’ with regard to this issue, to develop a performance table ‘weighted for the FIGHTER role’. This should clearly prove the ‘ability’ of the aircraft insignificant, as compared to one another, much like Coke, Pepsi; prove their ‘accomplishment’ clearly is the determining factor, as performance is not ‘personal’ or ‘historical’ it is numerical, has no bearing on ‘best’, as clearly Achilles is a better warrior than the current javelin record holder. This table should prove that history accomplishment are the sole criteria for the award of best.

Coke is clearly superior to Pepsi; as demonstrated by Coke’s accomplishment of market share dominance. Each product’s ‘performance’ if you were, is too close to the other to call, as enforced by the ingredients listed on the label; as unquantifiable as the reason may be, Coke’s #1; Burger King found out the ‘hard way’, they sold less Whoppers when Pepsi products were at the fountain. People do not ask for a Cola, and most do not ask for a Pepsi (diet cola may be another thing all together).

During the many exchanges that followed, and the evolution of my ‘tables’ a strange thing happened. I found a new argument, one that focused our point; accomplishment history are relevant, not ‘ability’ or ‘stat’; but it also replaces the ’51 as best WW2 fighter…

(http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/about962-0-asc-540.html)

Edited From > JonJGoldberg > Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2005 1:34 am
“Is it possible that a ‘match’ between WW2 fighters can be confined to altitude ‘X’, assuming that one or the other contestant isn’t wiped out on the first pass? ...

Is a plane that climbs at 3,000 fpm, when its adversary climbs at 4,000 fpm, at a disadvantage, when the plane that climbs at 3,000 fpm can maintain climb angles keeping its guns on the target? ...

Will a pilot, who knows his mount is not a turn/stall fighter, change his proven zoom boom tactics, to turn/stall fight an adversary even if the foe is a multi-engine bomber out of bullets? ...

My 1st three paragraphs represent what I view on these threads, in conclusion to most digressions; ‘members’ stating that plane X is better at medium altitudes than plane Y, or it climbs better, or performs better in a turn fight. All important aspects to be sure, but not overall the right approach to determining which was best in my opinion, rather, I feel it perpetuates this circular exchange among us, prevents us from moving past, quoting the lancaster kicks ass, “…it all comes down to what you look for in a fighter.”

… I’m thinking we are all wrong. My vote for the P-51 most other posts I’ve seen avoid this plane… the answer was in front of us all along.

Edited from an article which can be found, beginning at http://www.stormbirds.com/squadron/home.htm 

“Some of the most unnerving German advances to emerge late in the war were embodied in the jet aircraft; especially the Messerschmitt 262 fighter. While the forces of the Wehrmacht were in a full retreat across the continent, this sleek warbird was a cause for great alarm among the Allies. At a time when the rest the world's jet aircraft were little more than docile test beds,* the Me 262 was sweeping the sky for intruding bomber formations. The potential for disaster had not gone unnoticed.”

“What made the Me 262 such a force to be reckoned with? The most obvious -- and relevant -- answer lies in it's blinding speed. In 1944-45, the North American P-51 Mustang was among the quickest and most agile performers in the Allied arsenal. In a clean configuration (without drop tanks), it's top speed was in the neighborhood of 440 miles per hour with "everything wide open except the toolbox." 

“By way of contrast, when the Me 262 joined the battle in the skies over Europe, it was capable of passing through a bomber formation at 540 mph with relative ease. This gave it a speed advantage over Allied escort fighters of between 100 and 150 miles per hour, and rendered traditional tactics ineffective.”

“Many U.S. bomber crews began to complain that, when they attempted to track the Me 262 from their defensive positions, the electric gun turrets could not slew fast enough to keep up with the Stormbird.”

“The weapons fitted to the aircraft were no less impressive. The standard Me 262 carried four Mk 108 30mm cannons in the nose, and was later equipped with R4M 50mm rockets mounted on racks under the wings. Both were devastatingly effective against any adversary, and Stormbird pilots ran their scores up quickly against the American bomber formations.”

To end… My arguments previously posted proclamations about the P-51, Hurricane as rightful owner runner up to the best fighter title I now retract. I retract my statements about MVPs having to come from the ‘wining team’. I was in error, I was wrong. 

The Me 262 was not so much "ahead of it's time" as it was the harbinger of an entirely new era in aviation, which I now concede as historically of more value than the fighter most responsible for winning a battle, or theater, regardless of the terrible philosophy practiced by some of its creators. Additionally, the Me-262 held clear performance edges of unmatched speed, unmatched firepower. …The amount of effort expended by the Allies, Soviets in the finding, securing, rebuilding, testing of Me-262s, is the final testimony of its status, Best Fighter Of WW2.”

Another lesson I learned is that most members have closed their minds long ago… See below as I fence with DerAdlerIstGelandet; as the holder of an opinion in opposition to his, not a personal attack, as I respect his efforts, not his wavering opinions in this matter.


----------



## JonJGoldberg (Feb 18, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet,
For the ‘longest time’ I felt it important to try to get you to see the validity of history vs ‘paper capability’. 

Finally, for reasons unknown to me, as I catch up from an unusually busy period at work, on my reading here, I find, low behold a flip flop from you.

If you read fully my previous post (big job, I write too dam much ‘nothing’, even for me as I look back on my own crap), on Oct. 16 you state (I put my interpretations to your quotes I posted ‘above’) you believe the reason for the Mustang’s success was volume, accomplishments be dammed its ability that counts. Reasonable, even if flawed, arguments.

Today I find you posted: “Twitch you are correct that paper stats do not prove what aircraft is better than another, I have argued that many, however with the argument that you gave, my paper stats contradicted...” What’s this? 

Let me offer the following facts you’ve informed me of in the past... Although the ‘spec’ shows the aircraft on your list had the ‘ability’ to run with, or out speed the ’51 they in large part did not, they could not, as ‘fielded’, either run with, or out handle the Pony, due to, as you love to proclaim, the lack of: Quality parts, gas / any parts, or any gas; quality opportunity as German pilots usually found themselves climbing to meet the bombers / no opportunity as while climbing, diving in on them were ‘51s in numbers greater than or equal to their own.

I really can’t believe you honestly feel aircraft were dog fighting, for the most part in WW2. The Japanese Italians in general, thought the same; didn’t take them as long to see their errors, as it has for you, although for them this error was far more costly. I’ve read from countless fighter pilots of the time, over and again, that speed, was above all, was the most important attribute while engaged in combat in the days before ‘radar-locked, fire and forget’ weapons. During WW2 if I could out speed you, I will not need to out maneuver you, I just need to wear you out, keep my composure distance, for fate or opportunity will show their hand. Yet I remain in control, until I give your maneuverable aircraft my opportunity by slowing down, then, only then may you may maneuver to serve me your fate.

And others agreed with you DerAdlerIstGelandet...

Oh man the flip flop… You are still saying that it was mass that made the Mustang great, and ‘true ability’ that makes the ‘fighter’ of your choice, I believe it to be the ‘190-D, the best. There has been no wavering here. The flip-flops occur when we look at your arguments as they relate to your views. 

On the one hand, you do not accept ‘history’’… The stats for the Pony you believe are inaccurate due to their number, as you posted since, lets say Oct 16th. Most of us know the ’47 was the American fighter type built in the most number, not just for WW2, but in American History, therefore it was the most numerous Allied or American fighter type found in the sky, period. 

So you flip, you argue, the ‘190-D was more capable, more developed, well rounded, offering stats. Big deal, for one thing; come again for another? After the BOB, during the time of its introduction, when the ‘190 ruled the air, what did it do to effect history, in a scale that rivals the Mustang? OOPPS I mentioned history, invalid argument. As for stats, they are too close to call, and you do not believe in them. So for the moment, lets say I agree that Dora was more well rounded than the Pony. Dora’s job was to eliminate the bombers 1st. I guess it preformed well. It was often given the opportunity, bombers dispenced, to carry out those other tasks it was ‘developed’ for. The Pony’s job was to protect the bombers. I guess it performed poorly. Ponies rarely strayed and performed ‘secondary’ roles, as they were too busy trying to adequately defend the bombers, and remained at their side.

So you flop… You stated again recently that stats are meaningless to you, its ability that counts, as proven by... Just how do you go and convey your points. The flip flop prevents anyone from presenting you with valid points. In essence, you are a masochist who because he likes the discomfort of ice cold showers in the winter takes warm showers instead.

… by the way, I still believe the Me-262 to be the best fighter of WW2, welcome arguments in challenge.


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 18, 2006)

The me-262 was perhaps the best interceptor, but not an air superiority fighter.

Plus didnt its performance get really bad at lower altitudes?


----------



## JonJGoldberg (Feb 18, 2006)

syscom3
Was the Me-262 ever in a position to demonstrate any other capability besides that of interceptor effectively? 

When the timing was right, the Germans ‘blinked’ as they say, tried to develop a bomber. Finally when fielded, the Germans needed to rid the sky of the ever present bombers, so its weaponry was kept from its ground attack duties, heavy delivery of fire power, at the expense of weight, and agility among others, the most interesting I believe was the problem of ‘harmonizing’ the firing of the weapons, not because of their mismatch, as is the usual reason, but as their simultaneous firing produced more breaking force than the forward thrust of the engines.

Interceptor was the need of the day, from the German standpoint, at which the 262 was formidable. Air superiority is easily within the 262’s potential, if it were to have happened.

Most ‘occurrences’ I’ve read about that detail combat events at lower altitudes that involve 262s describe them as taking to the air, or trying to land. Erich may be able to tell us if they performed low altitude ‘fighter’ sweeps, but to me this would be silly, except I could see it being a 'propaganda' bonus; I do not know of any ‘characteristic’ that warrants your belief that the 262 did not perform well below, strike that, at low altitudes.


----------



## delcyros (Feb 18, 2006)

The main problem for Me-262 low altitude sorties is the fuel consumption of it´s Jumo-004B3/4. As it was the limiting factor for all 1st gen. jets. In low altitude they have a fuel consumption of 21.6 ltr. /min, at high altitude (35.000 ft) it only was around one third of that: 7.1 ltr. /min. (both figures for 100%=890 Kp)
Despite this the Me-262 performed low level bomber attacks (Remagen, Kleve), reconnesaince and interceptor sorties.


----------



## Henk (Feb 18, 2006)

Yes, the Me-262 was not good at low altitute, but it was almost all the same wiht the first jets.

Henk


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 18, 2006)

Wasnt the Me262 very vulnerable at lower speeds? Someone mentioned that the engines took a long time to "spool up" and were prone to compressor stalls?

And I swear someone somewhere mentioned that the swept wings were not "good" at low speeds ( I could be wrong, so dont throw darts at me.....).

And werent those 30mm cannons were the low velocity types?....Seems they would be great against bombers but against a maneuvering fighter, the trajectories would be hard to judge, even with a computing gun site.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 18, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Wasnt the Me262 very vulnerable at lower speeds? Someone mentioned that the engines took a long time to "spool up" and were prone to compressor stalls?
> 
> And I swear someone somewhere mentioned that the swept wings were not "good" at low speeds ( I could be wrong, so dont throw darts at me.....).
> 
> And werent those 30mm cannons were the low velocity types?....Seems they would be great against bombers but against a maneuvering fighter, the trajectories would be hard to judge, even with a computing gun site.



Your first 2 comments Sys - true - Early jet engines (especially centrifugal flow) spooled up very slowly, and swept wings provide very poor low speed handling characteristics. To remedy this automatic slats and wing fences are incorporated in the wing design...

As far as the guns - sounds good to me!


----------



## delcyros (Feb 18, 2006)

At low altitude AND low speed the Me-262 is as vulnarable as any other twin engined plane.
= easy prey
It wasn´t specially vulnarable at low altitude as you might imagine here, Syscom.
The compressor stall is no typical low altitude engine behavior it is an especially HIGH altitude engine behavior (the higher the altitude, the more reduced is the speed of sound (even at a higher compression rate), the more airflow at high will be produced but less consumed by the turbine, this leads to a compressor stall. At lower altitudes the SoS is far higher).
The spool up time is a concern of the engine at 0-4000 rpm (initiate spool up), which had to be made very careful. According to the operations manual of the Jumo-004 B3 jet engine also the acceleration from 4.000 to 6.000 rpm has to be made smoothly. Once 6.000 rpm is exceeded the engine isn´t that prone to throttle setting changes.
The handling of Me-262 at low speed wasn´t more difficult than those of Me-109. The plane had full wing length automatic leading edge slot to provide additional lift at low speed (this offsetted the swept wing disadvantages. The same system was overtaken for the F-86 later for the same reasons).
Once full rpm was engaged, the thrust to weight ratio implies that the Me-262 accelerated at low altitude exactly like a late P-47 D. The take off speed, however, was way higher.
And You are right about the low velocity MK 108. They are not that suited for dogfights but they have a high battery output and single even single hits will cause considerable damage. More gunnery skill is required to get the best out of the 3 cm mine rounds.


----------



## JonJGoldberg (Feb 18, 2006)

… Low altitude increase gas burn, decreased range are not considered, by me, to be the ‘handicaps’ you guys refer when you ask “Plus didn’t its performance get really bad at lower altitudes?”; as this was/is true of all aircraft power-plants, airfoils, even those of today. There is still a sweet spot in any aircraft performance envelope, a density air that is optimal, as we still strive to create better adaptive power-plants, airfoils of ever greater efficiency, expanding ‘sweet spots’. 

The swept wings do reduce in effectiveness as speed decreases, so those clever designers used automatic leading edge slats. Did this completely erase the problem, no; the 262 pilot’s job is to keep his mount in it’s sweet spot, why slow down, it will only add to your problem? No American fighter until say mid ’44 could turn with a Zero (P-38J/L or Grumman Bearcat [mid ’45; never saw combat in WW2 but was ‘in field’]), especially the early ones, or an Oscar (…but only through 180 degrees or so, after which it must reduce it’s turn rate or stall, less even when against torque for the ‘Bear’), yet Wildcat P-40 pilots were able to use what little advantages their aircraft offered, combined with tactics, to defeat the Zero more often than they became the defeated. When the P-40s or Wildcats slowed to engage in a turn fight, especially if their wing man or tactic were compromised, they almost always lost.

The 30mm cannon would have surely been replaced, as the primary roll of the 262 changed from interceptor to ‘air superiority’ roles; it’s not as if the Germans lacked other mountable highly effective ‘anti-fighter’ weapons; as for the complex trajectory… yes, and no; they were centrally mounted. In regards to the slow firing rate you are very correct; they were intended to bring down bombers effectively. Please consider that these weapons firing faster might have brought down the aircraft firing them.

As for ‘engine spooling’ at this point, I may only offer that to all that flew her, when power was reduced she held speed for an extremely long period of time, even to a ’51 pilot. Engine response, prop effects are dynamics I’m educating myself in now. After reading recently acquired pilots manuals, I find it fascinating that inverted flight could only be of durations of less than 10 to 15 seconds on average. That we all use boosted or ‘over-boosted’ piston engine outputs for our ‘max’ performance ‘debates’ even though we all know the fact is that these conditions could only be maintained for short infrequent ‘emergency’ durations.

Below I post info that you may find at (www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com).


----------



## delcyros (Feb 18, 2006)

Shame I couldn´t download the whole document (website not online).
I have been searching after it for a while.
Please all notice paragraph B!
"(...) ...it is also reported, that once the speed of sound is exceeded, you regain control"

This fit´s with Mutkes reports as it does with the aerodynamic transsonic estimation of the Me-262 (if we assume the airframe survives the stress for which it never was designed). Would be interesting to know the source of these "reports" as well...
Cheers JonJ!


----------



## Henk (Feb 18, 2006)

Nice info thanks, great work.

Henk


----------



## JonJGoldberg (Feb 18, 2006)

The full document can be downloaded here http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/Me262/262PilotHandbook.pdf


----------



## Henk (Feb 18, 2006)

Thanks mate.

Henk


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 18, 2006)

Were those supersonic speeds verfied by ground based measurements? I remember someone here mentioning (some time ago) that in the 40's, measuring sonic and supersonic speeds by in flight measurement systems could be wildly inaccurate.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 18, 2006)

What supersonic speeds?


----------



## plan_D (Feb 18, 2006)

I've heard, and firmly believe, that the Me-262 did achieve supersonic speeds during World War II. I've read a couple of pilot reports that mention power-diving at an altitude where the speed of sound is slower than ground level, and actually losing track of the speed as they started to pull out. This accompanied with the reports of effects on control, and vibrations make me think they would have broken it. 

Also, a few reports have come about of Me-262s falling to pieces in a dive. And, most controversial, loud bangs being heard by pilots around when there was no firing. The sonic boom...!


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 18, 2006)

The airspeed instruments of that era (middle 40's) were not accurate at transsonic, sonic and supersonic speeds.

Instrument readings from inside the aircraft should not be believed.


----------



## plan_D (Feb 18, 2006)

The report didn't mention the speedo indicating speed, it said it'd gone round the "clock".


----------



## evangilder (Feb 18, 2006)

From one of my articles on the P-47:



> On November 13, 1942, Lt. Harold Comstock and Lt. Roger Dyar saw indicated airspeeds of 725 MPH while dive testing these modifications. If it had been an accurate reading, it would have been the first airplane to break the speed of sound. The terminal velocity of the P-47 was 600 MPH, so it was proven that the indicated airspeed was dramatically inaccurate and the actual airspeed was in the mid-500 MPH range.



I too kind of question claims like those. I am not sure that the Me-262 airframe could take that speed.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 18, 2006)

Yep!


----------



## plan_D (Feb 18, 2006)

I have already stated that the indicated airspeed wasn't where the belief came from. On more than one occasion aircraft were reported to fall apart in a dive. On more than one occasion "loud bangs" were reported while in combat, and it didn't sound like gunfire. 

I don't know, but what I read was pretty convincing. And I don't take it as the solid truth, but it's possible.


----------



## evangilder (Feb 19, 2006)

If it was breaking up, I would think that it is possible then. I seem to remember reading somewhere the Me-262 could not break the sound barrier without breaking apart.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Feb 19, 2006)

I have read something similar.

Because of the uneven distribution of airflow over the airframe of the Me-262, supersonic flight is THOUGHT to have been impossible, purely from an engineering and darg perspective.

At very high speeds certain sections of the airflow over the fuselage and wings would exceed the speed of sound, while other sections remained subsonic. The resulting flow turbulence from the supersonic shockwave of the airflow over the wings and other empennage could cause massive buffeting and asymmetric airflows, enought to dramatically increase the drag profile.

Supposedly, localised airflow exceeded the speed of sound around the wingroots and inner wing, engine nacells and tailplane. It may of been possible that the German jet went trans-sonic, but the resulting spikes in turblence and drag kept it firmly below the sound barrier.

Messerschmitt research suggested that the Me-262 could get above Mach .85 before local airflows became supersonic and the plane became uncontrollable. Mach .85 seems to be the highest value they were willing to test at.


----------



## delcyros (Feb 19, 2006)

Thanks a lot JonJ!


----------



## delcyros (Feb 19, 2006)

Mach 0.85 (english source) or Mach 0.86 (Messerschmidt calculation) is the critical Mach speed at which the planes controll loose functionality. At higher speeds the plane gets strongly nose heavy (Mach trim) and will enter an otherwise terminal dive.
However, THIS WILL NOT PREVENT THE PLANE FROM FURTHER ACCELERATION. In a 60 degrees full power dive the Me-262 delivers the eaquivalent of 5.790 Kp thrust (~12.750 lbs). This power will overcome the high drag produced between Mach 0.85 and 1.18. Recent calculations proved this. As Syscom pointed out, there were no reliable transsonic instruments except for the Machmeter installed in the Me-163B. Still the instruments may show a Mach jump (described by Mutke as well as by those XF-86 transsonic dives). At speeds beyond Mach 1.03 the airflow over the wing will again allow the controll surfaces to take effect. 
If we thrust Mutke, he might be well beyond Mach 1.0:
He was at training flight in over 35.000 ft when he entered a full power dive to assist another attacked Me-262 5.000 m below him. At this altitude the speed of sound is around 1080 Km/h (670 mp/h) and increases gradually as he closes to the ground. He then looses controll and entered an even steeper angle of dive, still with full power. Despite heavy buffeting he then noticed a speed indicator jump (around 7.000m, "IAS" beyond 1.100 Km/h on the stopping point)and regained controlls. The Jumo´s, however, got quickly a flameout. At this altitude he was between 3.000 m and 5.000 m and could recover the (heavily damaged) plane for a gliding landing. It is technically more a question of aeroelastics than a question of drag. If he only was briefly in the dangerous speed zone ( between Mach 0.85 and 1.03), the airframe may sustain the stress by heavy buffeting, if he stayed longer the airframe would desintegrate due to excessive negative loadings (this also happened at least three times recorded). So the question is was the dive steep enough to slip through the dead zone or not? Could the airframe sustain all the stress or not and in which timeframe?
Mutke later was hardly attacked by Bär for damaging the Me-262 that much. The plane had to be written off.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 19, 2006)

Good info guys - I know a similar situation holds true for the Mig-15 - I believe it had a higher critical Mach number but unlike the Me-262 it would not accelerate much past that and would actually destroy itself if any attempt was made to exceed this and go beyond Mach 1.

I would not discount any story about the Me-262 going Mach 1....


----------



## delcyros (Feb 20, 2006)

It is indeed a comparable situation. The higher crit Mach figure of the Mig-15 is reasoned by it´s higher wing sweep degree. The airfoil, however, is significant thicker than that of the Me-262 and will produce a considerable higher degree of buffeting and drag (the wing sweep doesn´t offset the high drag, it just shift the high drag zone to higher speeds) at transsonic speeds. This is obvious if we compare the contemporary wing designs of La-15 and Mig-15. The former was able to reach Mach 1 because of a much thinner airfoil and little more sweep. Anyway, I believe that if any Me-262 got supersonic, this strongly is subject to accident actions rather than design features.


----------



## JonJGoldberg (Mar 2, 2006)

...Sorry, been very busy at work these days. 

delcyros Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2006 7:07 am "...Anyway, I believe that if any Me-262 got supersonic, this strongly is subject to accident actions rather than design features."

I could not agree more, but feel the plane either would be normally un-flyable if not destroyed during or after the event, as you imply. I'm going to be slammed for this... But my sim confirms this, as speeds beyond 660 mph cause airframe damage, at any density altitude. (I edit or create damage profiles using data acquired from manuals or from the spread sheet you may download here {http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/about962-0-asc-520.html}, find more info about the methods and math by going back a few pages.) Believe it or not, I still have greater faith in the calculation, than the report I posted.


----------



## delcyros (Mar 2, 2006)

I will second your thoughts about the Me-262.
I have a question to these charts, Jonny.
Are they based on mathematicla-physical, empirical, or litterally evidence? I am interested in these complex threads but had much problems with the mathematical part and probelms with literatures (take the flight manuals for example, according to Luftwaffe acceptance limits the printed max speed figures for a dive have to be exceeded by at least 15% guaranteed I am told later) as well.
Keep up the good work!


----------



## JonJGoldberg (Mar 2, 2006)

Delcyros thanks. I’ve posted lots of stuff related to the information on my tables. Data sources are given in the tables, and as for the rest, they were calculations. I can refer you here ( http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/about1116-0-asc-40.html ). Start with my post Nov 19, 2005 10:31 pm; I think you will enjoy the reading from there, as it provides the most complete answer I could give you with regard to its ‘accuracy’.

You bring up a very interesting point, which I do not think I’ve answered as of yet… You state “…according to Luftwaffe acceptance limits the printed max speed figures for a dive have to be exceeded by at least 15% guaranteed I am told later) as well.”

I have never seen; not to say that it does not exist, nor am I saying that it is not true, or that it was not done; any ‘official’ document claiming published limits can be exceeded by X-amount; but Wmaxt has, for sure, as he has referenced published P-38 capabilities above those instructed within the ‘pilot’s manual’, he has been a man of his word... However, please note that published limits are written to protect the pilot, in theory, from himself, as well as to establish an accepted performance ‘minimum standard’. This minimum standard requires ‘margins’, typicaly from about 10 to 15%, for natural occurrences such as altitude, speed, wind, rain, cold, hot, lighter than normal or heavier than normal operation…

I realize that the published ‘max’ settings in combat are the settings where the fun starts. They were probably regularly exceeded. But here we enter into other regions, and expose ourselves to arguments I feel I must avoid at all cost, when producing a table such as the one I produced …Pilot skill unverifiable numbers. 

When by how much a ‘stat’ could be exceeded is a matter an operator makes at the moment; it is the reason there were upsets by pilots who flew in what were as claimed before race day, as ‘inferior aircraft’ to the 'top contenders' in the Schneider Trophy races. 

You say the safe to exceed limit is 15%, and go on to offer a blank guarantee. OK; say you… Not to pick a fight, but in telling me this you seem to be ‘verifying’ it to yourself, nothing wrong with that, per say... Especially because in this instance I believe you to be correct. But, once again, as for the ‘table’ this to me would be a no-no. So the numbers that appear in the table are meant to represent ‘allowable’ published maximums. You may infer from here what would happen if you were to exceed them, but if I were to use those numbers how would we get back to the ‘published’ maximums. No better that you apply your ‘variance’ as you see fit.

I myself re-interpret the numbers you see in the tables to produce ‘air’ ‘damage profiles’ for my combat Sims.


----------



## delcyros (Mar 3, 2006)

Nice reading, JonJ.
I truly understand the problems You have dealing with uncertainities by pushing the flight envelope at/beyond limits.
My favourite interests are in late war, early jet planes, so I have only few flightmanuals (all copys) from:
Ta-152 H0 (translation work for Lunatic, posted in this forum)
Ar-234B2 (copy by Luftarchiv Hafner, original from dt. Museum)
Me-262 A1 (as above)
He-162 A1 (copy from original storaged in Leipzig archive)
He-162 A2 (copy from Luftarchiv Hafner, original from dt. Museum)

In order to give a sample I will take the He-162 example.
According to the the He-162 A2 flight manual (Bedienvorschrift Baubeschreibung Ausg. 1944) the max speed at sea level is 700 Km/h indicated (thus 750 Km/h TAS, since the instrument is constantly showing 10% less than true) =page 5, line 6 of the flight manual (ausg. 1944, printed march 1945)
while in the contemporary Baubeschreibung (Ausg. 1944, printed in march 1945) page 1 line 17 the figure is given with 800 Km/h at sea level and 1000 Km/h at ~3.200 ft (1.000 m). Other documents (published in Luftfahrt International 26) related to He-162 state that 1000 Km/h was the max speed to recover from a dive at 17 Kp stick forces and 3.5 G (this alone implies a larger technical envelope for the plane as well since recovering from a 1000 Km/h dive at 1000 m altitude is not possible, therefore the altitude must be [a lot] higher). In every respect (regardless of altitude) 1000 Km/h are far more than the 700, resp. 750 Km/h figure given in the flight manual for the pilot. The same document accuses worse executed production at different plane constructeurs (not EHAG), which don´t match for these Luftwaffe acceptance limits. 
I have similar phenomens in the flight manuals and construction manuals for Ta-152 H0, Ar-234 B2 and of course, the Me-262 A1 as well.
Another highly intersting book I own is "Metallflugzeugbau" in an edition from 1943 covering materials, working technicques, maths and basic airplane tooling. This is a wartime edition and provides excellent background informations regarding the working environment in mid war times (written for labourers). The definition part alone is interesting:
"N(sicher): Lastvielfaches beim Abfangen" (N(secure):G-forces at dive recovering)
"N(bruch): Minimales Lastvielfaches deren Überschreiten einen Bruch zur Folge haben kann, je nach Festigkeitsgruppe:
H 1= N(sicher)+1/-0.5 (not for Planes)
H 2= N(sicher)+1.5/-1 (not for warplanes)
H 3= N(sicher)+2/-1
H 4= N(sicher)+3/-1.5
H 5= N(sicher)+4/-2
H 6= N(sicher)+5/-3
N(breaking): minimal G-forces, whichs exceeding may cause an airfame failure, according to goup of construction stiffness: 
In case of the He-162 according to the flight maual: 6.5g at Festigkeitsgruppe H5 = +10.5g (=max safe g-forces at 2.500 Kg true weight). Early He-162 A2 were limited to 4g at H5 (therefore 8g max).
Anyway a really interesting matter. I may post scans if needed as soon as I get the digicam back.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 21, 2006)

Now that I have some time finally I will respond to some of this.



JonJGoldberg said:


> The ’51 by war's end had destroyed 4,950 enemy aircraft in the air, more than any other fighter in Europe.”



I am sure that Bf-109s and Fw-190s shot down more than 4850 acft a piece.

And then I read down and find this stuff from this Jon guy....

I will keep my responses short and sweet.



JonJGoldberg said:


> Another lesson I learned is that most members have closed their minds long ago… See below as I fence with DerAdlerIstGelandet; as the holder of an opinion in opposition to his, not a personal attack, as I respect his efforts, not his wavering opinions in this matter.



No actually I do not have a closed mind, it is actually very open to people opinions, you just cant handle the fact that people dont agree with you. Sounds to me like a personal problem. And by the way if go back and read your posts, they sound more like personal attacks in some of them. 

Besides you just said it right there that you do not respect my opinions. Well here you go, in order to earn respect you have to give. I no longer have any respect for you. I did until now, when we were just discussing, but until you earn my respect back again, as far as I am concerned you are just a guest on this forum.



JonJGoldberg said:


> In essence, you are a masochist who because he likes the discomfort of ice cold showers in the winter takes warm showers instead.



One more insult to myself or another admin on this forum and you will not be very happy.


----------



## JonJGoldberg (Mar 21, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet

The 1st part of your reply about air combat victories is at this time irrelevant to me.

You are a ‘main moderator’… the ‘threat’ in your post is warranted? 
You talked with your peers before threatening me?
How am I not going to be happy; why not simply write what you intend to do? You need that one more ‘insult’ to justify what exactly?
Absolutely absurd, that as moderator someone (myself primarily) that may not agree with you has ‘personal problems’ and or is making a ‘personal attack’ and therefore must be ‘threatened’… Put into place, as if I was your child... Excuse me!!!
This is an official WW2aircraft.net position?
Great!!! 
I was an idiot to have ever posted anything here…
I’m not in the least ‘guilty’ of the crimes DerAdlerIstGelandet has me convicted.


Regardless of the FACT that I expressed ‘respect’ for your efforts, that what I was posting was not intended as a personal attack, that what I wrote was in support of an opinion differing from yours; you even quoted these words, you still took it as a personal attack or as a condemnation of your work. 

Twitch was ‘thumb wrestling’ with members in this thread putting forth points I find very similar to my start at WW2aircraft.net, also here, in this same thread. You may find my post in support of Twitch here ( http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/about962-0-asc-580.html ), look for JonJGoldberg Posted: Sat Feb 18, 2006 1:59 am, you will notice it is ‘un-edited’. This post, as you may plainly see, contained postings from DerAdlerIstGelandet as well as others; used to describe my experience to Twitch and other readers; of the exchanges that resulted to statements I posted then, that I felt similar to Twitch’s statements position now. 

At the end of this post, I try to show Twitch that we (actually, let me correct that… you) here at WW2aircraft.net can have serious differences, such as closed minds, yet remain friendly, we’re not ‘too serious’… I offer as proof a fencing match with you (DerAdlerIstGelandet); if you (DerAdlerIstGelandet) took this to mean anything else… Ask before threatening, next time.

My posts have never ever been ‘personally condescending’ by intent; unless provoked. I seem more ‘gullible’ than most in this regard, and should have by my age, better ‘control’ over my entry into this kind of exchange, but I don’t. I therefore feel you to be very free with your accusations, and instead of the general accusation of “…And by the way if go back and read your posts, they sound more like personal attacks in some of them.” I will exactly direct you to some of our previous exchanges, and in doing so expose to you your own ‘personal problem’…

Edited from JonJGoldberg Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2005 12:17 am
( http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/about962-0-asc-540.html )
“…Sorry, there has been quite a bit of action, at least for me, there recently at this exact moment I'm a bit fired up, so, accept my apology in advance for the tone. The reason for the post is to inform of some changes to the Fighter Comparison Tables…”

Copied from DerAdlerIstGelandet Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2005 2:01 am
( http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/about962-0-asc-540.html )
“It almost sounds like someone needs to stop taking things so seriously and not fired up.”

Edited from JonJGoldberg Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2005 12:17 am
( http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/about962-0-asc-540.html )
“…The amount of effort expended by the Allies, Soviets, as it is hard to believe just the Americans were interested in the finding, securing, rebuilding, testing of Me-262s, is the final testimony of its status, Best Fighter Of WW2.”

Copied from DerAdlerIstGelandet Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2005 5:00 pm
( http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/about962-0-asc-540.html )
“Jon I found your posts very very interesting and enjoyed reading them and posted some comments here and there. I just chose not to completly get involved because I did not care to compare aircraft based off of data from sims.”

Edited from JonJGoldberg Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2005 9:48 pm
( http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/about962-0-asc-540.html )
“…Absolutely no data came from any sim. They are drawn from books, web sites, other 'source' materials (no games/sims)…” “To conclude: Based on what I've seen of your posts, you I derive data from the same sources; reliable not so reliable. You use data reason to draw conclusions dream (I really don't mean this in a negative way at all). I use data reason to draw conclusions 'animate' sim aircraft..”

Copied from DerAdlerIstGelandet Posted: Fri Dec 18, 2005 9:35 am
( http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/about962-0-asc-540.html )
Jon I may have misunderstood you then. I thought you were taking this data from Sims. I apologize. 
I however do not dream about flying....... 

Edited from JonJGoldberg Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2005 1:35 pm
( http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/about962-0-asc-540.html )
I didn't mean to imply dreaming of flying in general, or weather or not you have flown, or have flown WW2 aircraft, just what we do with the data. 
Sorry 

Copied from DerAdlerIstGelandet Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2005 2:10 pm
( http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/about962-0-asc-540.html )
“I use data to learn.”

Copied from JonJGoldberg Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2005 11:51 pm
( http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/about962-0-asc-560.html )
“Now who’s gotta lighten up?”

Copied from DerAdlerIstGelandet Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2005 11:23 am
( http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/about962-0-asc-560.html )
“If you are referring to me, I dont need to lighten up.....”

One might think upon reflecting back on this Adler, that this ‘Jon guy’ seems very condescending, and is exciting a personal vendetta… I guess…

So we come to your last quote of mine, within your E-mail. Taken completely from context, as it stands alone without the rest of my post, within your post, as you presented it, it may be considered a personal attack. Your presentation was done in order to justify your threat as you can not reply in a ‘meaningful adult manner’, this is my conclusion.

Copied from JonJGoldberg Posted: Sat Feb 18, 2006 2:08 am
( http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/about962-0-asc-580.html )
“DerAdlerIstGelandet, 
For the ‘longest time’ I felt it important to try to get you to see the validity of history vs ‘paper capability’. 

Finally, for reasons unknown to me, as I catch up from an unusually busy period at work, on my reading here, I find, low behold a flip flop from you. 

If you read fully my previous post (big job, I write too dam much ‘nothing’, even for me as I look back on my own crap), on Oct. 16 you state (I put my interpretations to your quotes I posted ‘above’) you believe the reason for the Mustang’s success was volume, accomplishments be dammed its ability that counts. Reasonable, even if flawed, arguments. 

Today I find you posted: “Twitch you are correct that paper stats do not prove what aircraft is better than another, I have argued that many, however with the argument that you gave, my paper stats contradicted...” What’s this? 

Let me offer the following facts you’ve informed me of in the past... Although the ‘spec’ shows the aircraft on your list had the ‘ability’ to run with, or out speed the ’51 they in large part did not, they could not, as ‘fielded’, either run with, or out handle the Pony, due to, as you love to proclaim, the lack of: Quality parts, gas / any parts, or any gas; quality opportunity as German pilots usually found themselves climbing to meet the bombers / no opportunity as while climbing, diving in on them were ‘51s in numbers greater than or equal to their own. 

I really can’t believe you honestly feel aircraft were dog fighting, for the most part in WW2. The Japanese Italians in general, thought the same; didn’t take them as long to see their errors, as it has for you, although for them this error was far more costly. I’ve read from countless fighter pilots of the time, over and again, that speed, was above all, was the most important attribute while engaged in combat in the days before ‘radar-locked, fire and forget’ weapons. During WW2 if I could out speed you, I will not need to out maneuver you, I just need to wear you out, keep my composure distance, for fate or opportunity will show their hand. Yet I remain in control, until I give your maneuverable aircraft my opportunity by slowing down, then, only then may you may maneuver to serve me your fate. 

And others agreed with you DerAdlerIstGelandet... 

Oh man the flip flop… You are still saying that it was mass that made the Mustang great, and ‘true ability’ that makes the ‘fighter’ of your choice, I believe it to be the ‘190-D, the best. There has been no wavering here. The flip-flops occur when we look at your arguments as they relate to your views. 

On the one hand, you do not accept ‘history’’… The stats for the Pony you believe are inaccurate due to their number, as you posted since, lets say Oct 16th. Most of us know the ’47 was the American fighter type built in the most number, not just for WW2, but in American History, therefore it was the most numerous Allied or American fighter type found in the sky, period. 

So you flip, you argue, the ‘190-D was more capable, more developed, well rounded, offering stats. Big deal, for one thing; come again for another? After the BOB, during the time of its introduction, when the ‘190 ruled the air, what did it do to effect history, in a scale that rivals the Mustang? OOPPS I mentioned history, invalid argument. As for stats, they are too close to call, and you do not believe in them. So for the moment, lets say I agree that Dora was more well rounded than the Pony. Dora’s job was to eliminate the bombers 1st. I guess it preformed well. It was often given the opportunity, bombers dispenced, to carry out those other tasks it was ‘developed’ for. The Pony’s job was to protect the bombers. I guess it performed poorly. Ponies rarely strayed and performed ‘secondary’ roles, as they were too busy trying to adequately defend the bombers, and remained at their side. 

So you flop… You stated again recently that stats are meaningless to you, its ability that counts, as proven by... Just how do you go and convey your points. The flip flop prevents anyone from presenting you with valid points. In essence, you are a masochist who because he likes the discomfort of ice cold showers in the winter takes warm showers instead. 

… by the way, I still believe the Me-262 to be the best fighter of WW2, welcome arguments in challenge.”

So do what you will DerAdlerIstGelandet … Make me very unhappy!!! You have the POWER, I’ve given you the excuse…

Now I’m taking pleasure in being the masochist who because he likes the discomfort of ice cold showers in the winter takes warm showers instead. Feels BAD… Real BAD. 
So-long, see ya!!! This will be my last post on this site, unless DerAdlerIstGelandet apologizes for his threat, or I receive an apology from another moderator.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 21, 2006)

Oh brother here we go. There was no threat involved actually, it was a statement. I was simply saying that if insult me again such as the masochist comment, then I have to take administrative action. I had no intentions of banning you or running you off. I do not threaten people over the internet, that is a cowardly thing to do, and for that I will not apologize.

Jon I have told you on several occasions that I think your posts are very good posts and that you contribute here very very very well. You do not need to leave this forum.

I just dont like people telling me that I am closed person because I dont agree with there ideas or opinions. Maybe it is you that is closed....

There are plenty of people here who do not agree with me, and there are plenty of people here that I do not agree with and we all still get along. Hell some of these people are even coming to visit me in Germany this summer to hang out. Just because someone does not agree with you or has a different opinion does not make them closed or wrong.

On that note do as you please and have a good night.


----------



## davparlr (Mar 24, 2006)

Well, I am new here and there seems to be a fist fight going on. I'll throw in my two cents worth and try to keep it short. Selecting a best fighter is a extremely difficult task. As has been mentioned before, it is all a matter of selecting variables to emphasis. High altitude, low, mid, top speed, roll rates, best climb, etc. These variables can be argued forever. In addition, for rapid pace of technology exhibited in WWII, time line is critical. One can argue the Me 262 was the greatest, but maybe if the war had continued another 6 months, the P-80 or Brit fighter would have dominated (this is discussed elsewhere in this forum). A few months later, advanced German planes would switch the balance again, an so on. The ultimate measure of greatness of any weapons system is it impact on the enemy and on the conflict. There were many great fighters in WWII. In my mind, there is only one with a unique capability that enemy could not overcome, that was the ability to fly long distances and then engage the enemy's most capable defense and give a good account of itself. That, of course, is the P-51. Without the Mustang, daylight bombing may have been stopped. Without the Mustang, intensive anti-fighter efforts before D-day could not have been effective. D-day may have failed. And of, course, there's Hermann Goering's famous statement "When I saw Mustangs over Berlin, I knew the jig was up." I don't any other fighter that impacted his enemy as much as the Mustang or earned such a statement. The Germans could not recover from the bombings and the deep interdictions the Mustangs allowed. The Mustang's greatness was not in its overpowering fighting ability, which is arguable, but in what forces it allowed bring to the enemy, which is not.

I may be incorrect in some details but I think the variable I selected is correct.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 24, 2006)

davparlr said:


> One can argue the Me 262 was the greatest, but maybe if the war had continued another 6 months, the P-80 or Brit fighter would have dominated (this is discussed elsewhere in this forum). A few months later, advanced German planes would switch the balance again, an so on.



That I agree with 100%. 





davparlr said:


> I don't any other fighter that impacted his enemy as much as the Mustang or earned such a statement.



That I do not agree with. The Spitfire and Hurricane were for the British just as the P-51 was for the US. The Spitfire and Hurricane are what kept England alive during the BoB. Without it, England may have been fallen (ofcourse this is highly debatable because the Germans more than likely would not have been able to logistically sustain and invasion of England anyhow).


----------



## davparlr (Mar 25, 2006)

The Spitfire and Hurricane are what kept England alive during the BoB. Without it, England may have been fallen

I agree that they were vital to the winning of the war and were great airplanes and indeed when the Battle of Britain was won, "The jig was up". I had read that after the war the Russians ask a German general what was the turning point of the war, expecting him to say Stalingrad. He said, correctly, the Battle of Britain. I guess my point of uniqueness is that, while great, they were typical. I suspect that if you swapped the spitfire and hurricane with the Me109, the British pilots would still have won the battle. I do not know of another Axis or, as a matter of fact, Allied aircraft that you could have swapped with the P-51 and have been able to do what it did. From my personal perspective, this raises the P-51 ever so slightly above the many of other qualified candidates.


----------



## netudki (Mar 25, 2006)

There isn't any fighter, that you cant swap for another fighter. The P-51 you can swap for the P-47 or P-38. Maybe the causality of Ally would be higher if only the P-47 or P-38 will be the only escort fighter, but they will win the war. The only different between the Mustang and the Spiti and the Hurricane, that they start the fight at 1939, when the P-51 was only a little dream. That is the reason why the Spiti is the Best fighter of WW II.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 25, 2006)

You bring up a good arguent for the P-51, and it is a valid one, I just think that the only reason it was so effective is because of the sheer numbers. You cut those numbers of P-51s down and more German fighters would have gotten to the bombers.

nedudki there is one big difference between the P-51 and the Spitfire and Hurricane and that would be: range. The Spitfire could not take the battle to the Germans as well as the P-51 could.


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 25, 2006)

Joj J,
Throughout ur entire post above, u seem like a freakin crybaby... I do not like the way u think u can talk to a Moderator, so heres a warning for u, and some advice....

If u dont like it here, leave, and no one will miss u, and u'll be replaced by another number crunching stat geek.... Ive usually enjoyed ur posts and info, and the replies that u sometimes get were amusing, but this crap has gotten too far....


----------



## netudki (Mar 25, 2006)

Dear DerAdlerIstGelandet
You are right, the Mustang was a long range fighter, the Spiti was a short range interceptor. But, there was a tendency, to increase the Spiti's range
and the later types had more and more range, but at 1944 was unnecessary to create a long range Spiti escort type, because this taske - the daylight heavy bomb raids and escort - fulfill the US Air Force.
I think would be better if I would say, that the Spiti was more useful for the Allied Forces in the II WW like the P-51.


----------



## davparlr (Mar 25, 2006)

I have probably kicked off a discussion held many times and will continue to do so. The ultimate answer is subjective. And most arguments are non persuasive to fans of competing aircraft.

To answer a couple of comments.




> You bring up a good arguent for the P-51, and it is a valid one, I just think that the only reason it was so effective is because of the sheer numbers.



The sheer numbers did allow the overpowering of the German fighters, but you could have filled the skies with P-47s, P-38s, spitfires, et. al., and they would never have reached Germany to overpower the Germans. Again, it was P-51s unique range and performance that opened this option.



> The P-51 you can swap for the P-47 or P-38.



Before D-Day plus some days, the P-47 or P-38 could not have replaced the P-51 on the long range bomber raids that strangled Germany and cut support for the troops, nor provide the long range interdiction and fighter sweeps that were instrumental in reducing German fighter response to D-Day. After D-Day, they would have been able to replace the P-51, but the horse was out of the barn by then.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 25, 2006)

Ill agree with that. As I said the main advantage of the P-51 was the fact that it could take the battle to Germany. Now having said that, was the P-51 the best fighter of WW2. Probably not. It was a great all around aircraft and one of the greatest of all times, but I think there were aircraft that overall were better. I personally think the P-47, Fw-190D and the Spitfire were overall better aircraft than the P-51. Each aircraft had there advantages and disadvantages over the others.

Basically though I think it comes down to what you are using the aircraft for.


----------



## davparlr (Mar 25, 2006)

All good classic selections with good arguments for all four with the break being how one selects the important criteria. I suspect any side would be thrilled to have any of these planes on their side. I must admit that I am unfamiliar with Soviet aircraft but I think that toward the end of the war, they had some pretty good fighters and ground attack (e.g. Il2). Performance data on the La5FN sounds pretty good but info on high verses low altitude seems limited. It uses a twin row radial. Does anybody know if this is a western design. The Soviet were not proud and would take any technology to help them push out the Germans.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 25, 2006)

I too am very unfamiliar with the Soviet Aircraft, I cant help you much.


----------



## wmaxt (Mar 25, 2006)

davparlr said:


> I have probably kicked off a discussion held many times and will continue to do so. The ultimate answer is subjective. And most arguments are non persuasive to fans of competing aircraft.
> 
> To answer a couple of comments.
> 
> ...



1. P-38 flew the First 1,000mi escort in the ETO/MTO over Italy from Africa in August '43. I belive the day after the *first* Schwienfurt raid.
2. The P-38s predated the P-51s as 8th AF escorts by 2 months, late october '43 to the P-51s last week in December. 
3. The P-38s were only matched in numbers by the P-51s in June of 1944, it was still 1/2 P-38s in March.
4. The P-38s were the First Escort fighters over Berlin, Germany.
5. The P-38 had the SAME abort rate ave of 30% that the P-51 had for their first three months of operation in the ETO. The 8th AF lost only 451 P-38s Total, even though the 8th encouraged the myth that it was a lot higher.
6. The loss rate of bombers was 9/10% ave before escort and from the time the P-38s started escorting bombers it dropped to 4/5% (~90% of that is due to AA fire). It never changed, it wasn't the planes type it was the fact of an agressive escort, the P-47D-25 (long range versions) on would have done as well.

BTW As for range, at the time the P-38Hs were escorting bombers their range was 1,640mi with the 165gal drop tanks used by the 8th AF. Everwhere else in the world 300gal drop tanks were used allowing 2,200mi range.



> The P-51 you can swap for the P-47 or P-38.





davparir said:


> Before D-Day plus some days, the P-47 or P-38 could not have replaced the P-51 on the long range bomber raids that strangled Germany and cut support for the troops, nor provide the long range interdiction and fighter sweeps that were instrumental in reducing German fighter response to D-Day. After D-Day, they would have been able to replace the P-51, but the horse was out of the barn by then.



As I pointed out above they were there and the P-38 in particular did MORE than half the work getting to D-Day. The P-38s also did a lot during may in preparing the way for D-Day as attack aircraft in the Normandy landing area. Alos the P-38 were used as beach/landing area/ship cover on D-Day.

Try this site for more data on the P-38 and its role in the ETO:
http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/P-38.html these articles are titled Der Gabelschwanz Teufel but don't let that fool you.

Also don't forget the early P-47s and Spitfires that gave cover to the German border both in and out, that allowed the P-38s, P-47D, and the P-51s to retain their external fuel so they could reach Berlin. The P-51 gets a LOT of credit it never earned!  It was a very good fighter but not half as good as its press.

wmaxt


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 26, 2006)

That is what I agree with there wmaxt. I think it was a great fighter, but just a bit overated. It kind of overshadows many other aircraft that were better, but just did not get the attention and fame.


----------



## Gnomey (Mar 26, 2006)

Agreed Adler and wmaxt, the P-51 is overated by many and overshadows other contempory aircraft...

Nice sig Adler!


----------



## davparlr (Mar 26, 2006)

Earlier in my career, I worked with a man who had flown both the spitfire and the mustang in WWII. Unfortunately, at that time I was more timid on talking to people about their war experiences. I wish that I had talked to him in depth. I am sure he could have spread some light on the discussions.

Other people I knew but never talked about the war with were:

One who flew the B-26 in WWII

One who was a flight test pilot for Douglas during WWII flying B-25s (he was 17 years old). He also went to school with Marilyn Monroe (he knew her by her real name).

Cmdr. Mitsuo Fuchida, who led the attack on Pearl Harbor (he is the one to call out Tora, Tora, Tora), visited my church for a testamony.

A neighbor who was on the destroyer Laffey when it was almost blown in half by a kamikazi off Okinawi.

If only I could talk to these guys now, what questions I would ask.

I have had the opportunity to talk to a WWII marine who was in charge of a machine gun platoon at Guadalcanal, Tarawa, and Iwo Jima. Those who know the war in the Pacific, knows these battles. He was hit in hte stomach by a japanese machine gun bullet 20 days into Iwo. He did have quite a story to tell.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 26, 2006)

I have talked to a few of the crew members from the Memphis Belle when they came to talk to our ROTC class many years ago.


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 26, 2006)

I've talked to so many vets I cant recall them all now, and God how do I wish I had a tape recorder..... Adolf Galland was a gas....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 26, 2006)

I wish I could have met him. Most of all I wish I could have met Hartmann, Baer, and Boyington.


----------



## davparlr (Mar 26, 2006)

I am afraid many of us have allowed valuable history to slip through our hands and we are left arguing about things we will never know.


----------



## davparlr (Mar 26, 2006)

Here is an interesting site on aircraft comparisons. It is a Russian site and reflects testing done by the Russians in comparison of German aircraft recovered during and after the war to their planes. Included are lend-lease planes which includes the P-47 and spitfire. I suspect their test are as suspect as some have said the post-war British were. According to them, the Russian planes wins hands down. Still interesting.

http://www.airpages.ru/eng/index.html

By the way, the Russians are big into the Great Patriotic War history and have some great sites with pictures of battlefield fortifications involved in the Russo-Finnish war and battles around St. Petersburg. One sites shows a bridgehead of about one square mile where 250,000 men died in three years. Spent and live munitions still abound. If any one is interested let me know.


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 26, 2006)

Pappy was a real character who fed off of the people around him.... He really did think he was that good....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 26, 2006)

Thanks for the link.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 27, 2006)

lesofprimus said:


> Pappy was a real character who fed off of the people around him.... He really did think he was that good....



I think I mentioned to you once Dan, me ex father in law ran a bowling alley in Tolucal Lake CA - Boyington and his wife used to bowl there every Friday night - a few times "things got out of hand." Boyington gave my ex-father in law an autograph copy of "Baa Baa Black Sheep" - first edition....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 27, 2006)

Wow.

I used to watch that show when I was a kid and I just bought the DVD of the first season.


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 27, 2006)

The show was a farce factually, but still entertaining.... Everyone knows that Pappy was a consumate liar right???

edit: And yea Joe, u metioned that before.... Typical Pappy....


----------



## SpitTrop (Mar 27, 2006)

"German aircraft design was ahead in 1939.....and 1945". Really? So how come they couldn't cope with even a narrow piece of water like the English Channel! Maybe their designers forgot to allow factors to increase range?
What about their routinley inferior bombers (exception; Ju-88), and the Ju-87ground attack aircraft that had no replacement despite having a fixed undercarriage!
The Spitfire proved a far better design to upgrade than the Bf109 too. Spitfires just got better, 109's, well they didn't! 
The Fw190 was awesome when it was first released, but the Spitfire was upgraded succesfully, in the meantime the Typhoon proved good at chasing down that particular bogey. Later Mark Spits coped with the Fw190A series without any problem.
Certainly they got a couple of good jets up and flying, but when it came to piston-engine design, then the late Mark Spits (X1V-XV1), plus the Tempest were more than a match for the Fw190D series. Okay so the Ta152 was in the pipeline, but the RAF hadn't stopped with its fighters either, the Tempest design was being improved too you know (Fury). We had the Meteor jet operational well before war's end as well. 
Yes, the Luftwaffe had some sexy projects at wars end, many just on paper, others barely started flying, we can't really comment on whether these would have been successful or not. I notice that whenever people talk about these "Luftwaffe 46" planes, they always do so without taking into account what the allies would have flown against them!


----------



## davparlr (Mar 27, 2006)

WWII, as with most wars, was an amazing technology leap. In only seven years, aircraft went from not much more than biplanes (even some of them participated) to jet and rocket powered planes. The different types of aircraft that was developed was stunning. Airplanes were designed, built and flew in months. The side that is perceived to be at a disadvantage usually is the most creative, the side with the advantage tends to be Conservative or reactive. After WWI, Germany was limited in its military growth so it spent it effort in tactics and weapons quality and as a result, was significantly ahead in tactical warfare theory and application (but behind in strategic theory and application). With initial success, Germany put technology on a lower burner (attrition replacement was given a priority) and projects like jet power was let to wander. The Allies at this time, after years of ambivalence over the military, struggled hard to catch up (some technology such as the spit and some tanks were equivalent but in insufficient numbers). After the allies gained the advantage, an increasingly desperate Germany turned again to technology to save them. The allies, with more men and material, emphasized attrition replacement and applied statistical theory to warfare (if I build twice as many tanks that are half as good as the enemy, I will win). This led to things like the Sherman tank, which was not even half the capability of the enemy but just swamped them in numbers. The theory works, its just bloody. The allies at this time was strictly reactive and built tons of producible, and capable, aircraft. When the jet appeared, the allied reacted. When the V-1 appeared, they reacted, etc. 

Mathematical theory won.

After all this baloney, the point is, there is no argument for the allies being ahead of Germany in areas or aerodynamic theory and aircraft and missile design at the end of the war. All allied nations changed their aircraft and missile (if they had any) designs to accommodate the information captured from the Germans. Had the allies been at a disadvantage, the reverse would have been true. From my perspective, the technological levels of the allies and axis was equivalent with only the forces of war and idiotic leaders affecting the military machine capabilities.

Sorry about the long winded entry


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 27, 2006)

no i think you raise some very interesting points, and i agree the germans did tend to over-engineer everything...........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 27, 2006)

SpitTrop said:


> "Really? So how come they couldn't cope with even a narrow piece of water like the English Channel!
> 
> and
> 
> The Spitfire proved a far better design to upgrade than the Bf109 too. Spitfires just got better, 109's, well they didn't!



Umm the Luftwaffe fighters did not have a problem with the English Channel. They did not lose the BoB because the Bf-109s could not handle the Spitfires, they lost it because of the change in stratagy. Its simple history. 

And the Bf-109's not getting better is a false myth also. sure they traded a little in there maneuverability with the gained weight, but a Bf-109G or K could still tangle with anything out there including the Spitfire. 




SpitTrop said:


> The Fw190 was awesome when it was first released, but the Spitfire was upgraded succesfully, in the meantime the Typhoon proved good at chasing down that particular bogey. Later Mark Spits coped with the Fw190A series without any problem.



That also is a myth. The Fw-190A's never were a pushover and it was never easy for a Spitfire or any allied fighter when they met a Fw-190A. It was a marvelous aircraft and one of the best of the war. Then there was the Fw-190 which is possibly the best fighter of WW2 and many here will agree with me. Sure it had some disadvantages over the Spitfire but do you think the Spitfire did not disadvantages either? Come on now.





SpitTrop said:


> plus the Tempest were more than a match for the Fw190D series.



Do you really think so. I am sure that a Tempest pilot would tell you otherwise since they even have said that the Tempest was not the greatest maneuverable fighter that the British had. The Spitfire could outfly a Tempest and the Fw-190D at worst was an equal to the Spitfire.



SpitTrop said:


> We had the Meteor jet operational well before war's end as well.



And the Meteor was far from superior to any of the German jets.



SpitTrop said:


> Yes, the Luftwaffe had some sexy projects at wars end, many just on paper, others barely started flying, we can't really comment on whether these would have been successful or not.



That is because several of these aircraft were ready for flight at wars end (Ta-183, Messerschmitt P.1011, etc...), and were flown after the war by the US or other countries and proved to be far more advanced than anything that the allies had on paper at the time.


----------



## davparlr (Mar 27, 2006)

I agree with all DerAdlerIstGelandet said but I have something to add to the last comment. The Ta-183 and Me P.1011 may have been near flight but were probably several years away from being effective fighters. The Ta-183 became the excellent Mig-15 after considerable redesign (the Germans may not have needed to do this if their proposed engines worked (I don't know all the rationale for the Russian redesign)). The P.1011 was probably further away from capability. The US did an intense analysis of its version, the Bell X-5, (which was a successful test vehicle) and determined that the vehicle would have to be an almost complete redesign in order to incoroporate the changes necessary become a successful fighter. Bell and some AF was excited about the prospects but higher ups prefered other routes. An interesting note here is that while the Mig 15 was incapable of exceeding Mach 1, Bell engineers thought that he X-5 would be supersonic capable if they were allowed to install J-65 engine (British Sapphire engine). Which they were not. Of course the X-5 data went on to be included in the excellent and underappreciated F-111, and the F-14. Obviously, these designs were well ahead of Allied designs (see my earlier comment).


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 27, 2006)

The Bell X-5 was based off the Messerschitt P.1011 not the Ta-183 and they changed the P.1011 by putting variable symetric wings on it.


----------



## davparlr (Mar 27, 2006)

The Bell X-5 was based off the Messerschitt P.1011 not the Ta-183 and they changed the P.1011 by putting variable symetric wings on it.

I thought that was what I said. I guess I didn't write it too well. Further research says the P.1011 had "ground adjustable variable-sweep". The X-5 changed that to a inflight capability. I didn't catch that the first time through.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 28, 2006)

No you probably said it that way. I was really tired when I was posting that last night.


----------



## davparlr (Mar 28, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> No you probably said it that way. I was really tired when I was posting that last night.



I noted that it was really late for you.


----------



## davparlr (Mar 28, 2006)

We also should note Lippisch's design work. I do not know how far he got but my references shows a least a glider. His work lead directly to XF-92A, F-102, F-106, and B-58. Space shuttle? And maybe contributed to the Mig-21.

The German technical base at the end of the war was impressive and we haven't even discussed balistic missiles, guided missiles, and who knows what else.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 28, 2006)

Lippisch had a lot of great designs but I dont think any were close to being ready for flight. I have some pictures of one in a book back home that was almost ready but it never flew.


----------



## Bullockracing (Apr 13, 2006)

The German aircraft copied in Russia were redesigned due to Stalin's anti-German views. In fact, more than one design was shot down for being "too German". The Ta 183/Mig-15 was redesigned for these reasons...


----------



## blue swede (Apr 14, 2006)

davparlr said:


> WWII, as with most wars, was an amazing technology leap. In only seven years, aircraft went from not much more than biplanes (even some of them participated) to jet and rocket powered planes. The different types of aircraft that was developed was stunning. Airplanes were designed, built and flew in months. The side that is perceived to be at a disadvantage usually is the most creative, the side with the advantage tends to be Conservative or reactive. After WWI, Germany was limited in its military growth so it spent it effort in tactics and weapons quality and as a result, was significantly ahead in tactical warfare theory and application (but behind in strategic theory and application). With initial success, Germany put technology on a lower burner (attrition replacement was given a priority) and projects like jet power was let to wander. The Allies at this time, after years of ambivalence over the military, struggled hard to catch up (some technology such as the spit and some tanks were equivalent but in insufficient numbers). After the allies gained the advantage, an increasingly desperate Germany turned again to technology to save them. The allies, with more men and material, emphasized attrition replacement and applied statistical theory to warfare (if I build twice as many tanks that are half as good as the enemy, I will win). This led to things like the Sherman tank, which was not even half the capability of the enemy but just swamped them in numbers. The theory works, its just bloody. The allies at this time was strictly reactive and built tons of producible, and capable, aircraft. When the jet appeared, the allied reacted. When the V-1 appeared, they reacted, etc.
> 
> Mathematical theory won.
> 
> ...


Maybe the difference at the start of WW2 was that the Germans were planning for their war and developing weapons for that purpose.
The Allies may have been naive about the impact of negotiations, and were not planning for the war that was to come. Instead, maybe they were developing weapons designed for containment of threats. (Excepting the Pacific forces of America being designed for projection of force, which were superior to their opponent.)
The point being; That maybe it wasn't that one country was superior to the other in technology, but more that the developments of weapon systems were subject to government policy at the time.
After WW2 the United States certainly changed its emphasis on weapon development, partly based on the experiences of WW2 and partly on it's recognition of being a true world power. Before the war it had a pacifist policy, after the war it had a aggresive defense policy.


----------



## davparlr (Apr 14, 2006)

blue swede said:


> Maybe the difference at the start of WW2 was that the Germans were planning for their war and developing weapons for that purpose.
> The Allies may have been naive about the impact of negotiations, and were not planning for the war that was to come. Instead, maybe they were developing weapons designed for containment of threats. (Excepting the Pacific forces of America being designed for projection of force, which were superior to their opponent.)
> The point being; That maybe it wasn't that one country was superior to the other in technology, but more that the developments of weapon systems were subject to government policy at the time.
> After WW2 the United States certainly changed its emphasis on weapon development, partly based on the experiences of WW2 and partly on it's recognition of being a true world power. Before the war it had a pacifist policy, after the war it had a aggresive defense policy.



You hit the nail on the head.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 14, 2006)

davparlr said:


> WWII, as with most wars, was an amazing technology leap. In only seven years, aircraft went from not much more than biplanes (even some of them participated) to jet and rocket powered planes. The different types of aircraft that was developed was stunning. Airplanes were designed, built and flew in months. The side that is perceived to be at a disadvantage usually is the most creative, the side with the advantage tends to be Conservative or reactive. After WWI, Germany was limited in its military growth so it spent it effort in tactics and weapons quality and as a result, was significantly ahead in tactical warfare theory and application (but behind in strategic theory and application). With initial success, Germany put technology on a lower burner (attrition replacement was given a priority) and projects like jet power was let to wander. The Allies at this time, after years of ambivalence over the military, struggled hard to catch up (some technology such as the spit and some tanks were equivalent but in insufficient numbers). After the allies gained the advantage, an increasingly desperate Germany turned again to technology to save them. The allies, with more men and material, emphasized attrition replacement and applied statistical theory to warfare (if I build twice as many tanks that are half as good as the enemy, I will win). This led to things like the Sherman tank, which was not even half the capability of the enemy but just swamped them in numbers. The theory works, its just bloody. The allies at this time was strictly reactive and built tons of producible, and capable, aircraft. When the jet appeared, the allied reacted. When the V-1 appeared, they reacted, etc.
> 
> Mathematical theory won.
> 
> ...



That is a bit simplistic. The allies demonstrated time and time again that they could develope technologies that were just as advanced , and in some cases more advanced than Germany.

Many of the weapons developed by the allies were not put to a statistical analysis. They were developed according to what doctrine and experience dictated must be built. If it worked out, great. If not, then obviously the assumptions behind their developement, application and performace were incorrect.

I will agree that Germany developed the technological weapons because of its dire need. But many of them were deployed before the bugs were worked out.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 17, 2006)

Yeap and they had to deploy them because of the desperate will to survive.


----------



## davparlr (Apr 17, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> That is a bit simplistic. The allies demonstrated time and time again that they could develope technologies that were just as advanced , and in some cases more advanced than Germany.
> 
> Many of the weapons developed by the allies were not put to a statistical analysis. They were developed according to what doctrine and experience dictated must be built. If it worked out, great. If not, then obviously the assumptions behind their developement, application and performace were incorrect.
> 
> I will agree that Germany developed the technological weapons because of its dire need. But many of them were deployed before the bugs were worked out.



Actually, I don't believe it is oversimplistic. Desperation tends to drive gambles in concepts. In wartime, it is military equipment and strategy. When one side is winning due to superior weapons and tactics, they tend to not emphasize risky developments but stick to the proven concepts. When one side feels threatened, they seek relief from the threat through change. The more the threat, the more desperate the change. They also tend to prematurely rush the technology into action. In the civil war, the desperate South developed electrical water mines, submarines, ironclad ships and used land mines (maybe for the first time) no matter what the economics and without proper testing and development. The Union forces resisted available weapons that could have shortened the war significantly (repeating rifles, like the Winchester and Spencer, and machine gun, Gatlin) mainly because of economics and simplicity. This did not mean the Union responses were inferior to the Southern designs. The Monitor was indeed a revolutionary vessel even if it was built as a response to the Virginia.

When the sides are roughly equal, like in 1940-43, this technilogical cycle can shift back and forth as each side jockys for a surperior position. In 1944-45 the Axis was getting more and more desperate and began to look for more and more technilogical advantage. This desperation drives both genius and foolishness, great designs and lousy designs. During this phase, the Allies were looking at winning the war the way it knew it would win, overpowering manpower and material. This did not mean the Allies did not nor could not produce superior weapons. They certainly could, it was just that the emphasis was their main strategy and countering threatening technilogical threats. (note here that the A-bomb was in a world all its own)

This concept is also true in business and sports. Football, which is minature war, is driven by the same forces. When a team is winning, it keeps doing the things that got them there, losing teams try new types of plays and defenses. When one of these work, the other team must then react and counter the threat.

I doubt if statisical analysis was really applied to the strategies of WWII. More likely gut feelings. Conforming to mathematical projections, whether planned or unplanned, was the reason the allies won (that and the bravery and safrifices of many, many heros).


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 17, 2006)

Indeed the Germans deployed some technologies that had no equal for the allies, such as rockets. For jet engines, their lead wasnt as large as you might think. If the allies wanted to deploy their jets with the same engine reliability issues, we would have seen the P80 by the end of 1944.

I would give the adavantage to Germany for the following:
Submarines and related technology
Rockets
Tanks and AFV's

I would give the allies the advantage for the following:
Heavy bombers and aircraft transports
Radar
Logistics
Nuclear weapons (of course)
Production methodoligies

I would say the allies had an absolute adavantage in naval technologies (ecept subs), but thats due more to necessity on their part as Germany didnt have the need to develope it.


----------



## davparlr (Apr 17, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Indeed the Germans deployed some technologies that had no equal for the allies, such as rockets. For jet engines, their lead wasnt as large as you might think. If the allies wanted to deploy their jets with the same engine reliability issues, we would have seen the P80 by the end of 1944.
> 
> I would give the adavantage to Germany for the following:
> Submarines and related technology
> ...



After thinking about this, I could only add decryption technology to the Allied side. I don't know what AFVs are.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Apr 17, 2006)

AFV = Armoured Fighting Vehicles


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 17, 2006)

Ive heard the the US Army had supurb C&C for indirect fire of its howitzers and guns. 

Dont know if its true, but if so, it made their batteries far more deadly than the German's.


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Apr 17, 2006)

The submarines of the axis were seriously ahead of those on the allied side. The XXI class u-bootes, and the I-400 class were both amazing vessels. Some axis ships were just as good as allied ones, albeit radar, which was already up there..They had an advantage in carriers (japanese ones innovative, and i like them, but american ones were just better). BB quality was a close one between the axis and allies. As was armoured cruised technologies. Anything below that though i would say goes to the allies. 

The soviets had some nice tanks, but the germans had a slight edge..however they just kept getting BIGGER, so big in fact they actually built a MAUS, one or two of them, which reportedly engaged soviet tanks in berlin.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Apr 18, 2006)

or they were just probably moving it to a new site, cause the plane they were working in was being overrun

anyways they were still blown up


----------



## wmaxt (Apr 18, 2006)

carpenoctem1689 said:


> The submarines of the axis were seriously ahead of those on the allied side. The XXI class u-bootes, and the I-400 class were both amazing vessels. Some axis ships were just as good as allied ones, albeit radar, which was already up there..They had an advantage in carriers (japanese ones innovative, and i like them, but american ones were just better). BB quality was a close one between the axis and allies. As was armoured cruised technologies. Anything below that though i would say goes to the allies.
> 
> The soviets had some nice tanks, but the germans had a slight edge..however they just kept getting BIGGER, so big in fact they actually built a MAUS, one or two of them, which reportedly engaged soviet tanks in berlin.



Good points.

The T-34 was actually the most advanced tank in that it was the first to have "Sloping Armor". The Germans just made them bigger and thicker armor to the point their powerplants and operational equipment wasn't up to the task. The Americans were simply behind and threw more tanks out there to make up the difference.

Piston engined fighters wise the US and Britain were with or slightly ahead of Germany but the US had their heads in the sand on rocket and jet possibilities until late. The Germans had the swept wing technology which was 5 years ahead of everybody else.

The real war winner was production, 300,000 US aircraft, tens of thousands of tanks, hundreds of ships talk about a steam roller.

wmaxt


----------



## davparlr (Apr 18, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Ive heard the the US Army had supurb C&C for indirect fire of its howitzers and guns.
> 
> Dont know if its true, but if so, it made their batteries far more deadly than the German's.



I saw a history channel special on something that said the Germans did not have much regard for the GI but feared the American artillery. One German was quoted as saying that things would be going well and then a GI would pick up a radio and all of a sudden artillery shells would be falling all over them.

The Germans made overpowering tanks but I understand that was not what the army wanted. They wanted a German version of the T-34, cheap reliable, effective, and in large numbers! The T-34 could be built in large numbers quickly and if the Germans had done this in 43, the slugfest of 44 and 45 could have been significantly different, although with limited fuel, lack of air control, and no logistics, the outcome would have been the same.


----------



## davparlr (Apr 18, 2006)

wmaxt said:


> Good points.
> 
> The T-34 was actually the most advanced tank in that it was the first to have "Sloping Armor". The Germans just made them bigger and thicker armor to the point their powerplants and operational equipment wasn't up to the task. The Americans were simply behind and threw more tanks out there to make up the difference.
> 
> ...



From what I have read, the American T-26 was a very good tank and was somewhat equivalent to a Tiger although its 90mm gun was slightly inferior to the 88. It came later in the war after overcoming resistance to miltary politics (we don't need a heavy tank). It played a minor role in WWII, some fighting in Europe, some in Okinawa. It went on the engage the T-34 in Korea and is the grandfather of the US Main Battle Tanks through the M60.


----------



## SHOOTER (Apr 28, 2006)

It is my contention based on statistical analysis of both "CLAIMED" and "Confirmed" Kills and losses that the Spitfire was most over rated!
Does anyone here know of admitted German losses in areas were the only or main opponent to the Luftwaffe was the RAF? Or of a web site that lists the losses and claims for either or both sides durring the war?

The reason that I ask is that the RAF was so famous, (Infamous!) for over claiming kills not actually made that it clouds the picture and makes rational analysis hard.

For instance during the BoB, the RAF "CLAIMED" over 2,600 kills, IIRC. But the Germans only lost ~1,100, of which the pols downed over 200 and Hurricanes over 500, leaving less than 400 for Spits?
Please E-Mail me with numbers if you would at [email protected]
Sincerely, Shooter.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 29, 2006)

so, you're making these claims without even having the full stats? what's your source for those RAF claims because i've never seen a claim that high, and do you seriously think the RAF were the only ones to overclaim? the RAF proberly did it the least actually, because of German overclaiming and lack of intelligence the jerries thought at one point the RAF was down to a couple of squadrons! get over it because we've discussed all of this before...........

and the spitfire is not over-rated, she made up most of fighter command's strength for most of the war, and is the most mass produced combat aircraft the UK's ever had, she was developed more than almost alomost any other plane to stay very much in competition with them and is widely regarded as one of the greatest planes of the war........


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 29, 2006)

I'd agree that it was perhaps the finest plane of the first part of the war.

But once the P51's and F4U's were making their presence known, the Spit was relegated to "also ran"


----------



## Gnomey (Apr 29, 2006)

Also ran, the Spitfire was anything but an also ran during the latter half of the war. Sure the P-51's were taking the fight to over German soil but the latter mark Spitfire's were better in almost every department than the P-51's and F4U's apart from one, RANGE.

For example: Climb Data (at sea level in feet per min):
P-47: 2,560
P-38: 3,300
P-51: 3,600 (low blower)/ 2,965 (high blower)
Tempest: 4,380
Typhoon: 3,840 (at 1,700ft)
Spitfire MKIX: 4,620 (Merlin 66)/ 4,390 (Merlin 70)
Spitfire MKXIV: 4,700
FW-190D-9: 3,329
From here: http://www.spitfireperformance.com/ (on the various pages for the aircraft). As you can see the P-51 climbs just over half as quickly as the Spitfires.

The Spitfire was easily one of the finest fighters of the war, it played a large part from the beginning to the end. Even at the end of the war there was NO fighter that could completely outclass it. One on one a Spitfire would most likely be able to shoot down a P-51 whereas the P-51 would find it hard to shoot down the Spitfire. The only fighters that made the Spitfire obselete were Jets, any other contempory piston engined fighter and the Spitfire was as good as (FW190D-9) or better than (most of the rest).


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 29, 2006)

The Spitfire finally got the range after the Luftwaffe had been swept from the skies.

Ok, the Spit had a great time to climb rate. The F4U-4 also had a great climb rate too. All three were equally fast. Firepower was similar. Spit had great all around maneuveability, but the P51 and F4U could dive quickly.

But the clincher is range. If you cant fly to where the party is, youre going to be left home sniveling.

The P51 and F4U-4 were better than the Spit because of this.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 30, 2006)

oh, sorry, aren't we counting the spits that took the fight to the italians in Africa and over Italy? or the ones that took the fight to the japs in the far east? and remember it was spitfires that were protecting the americans whilst you guys spent hours forming your heavy bomber formations, stopping the germans coing in and ripping you to shreads when you didn't have a clue what was going on, it was the seafire that was the first allied aircraft to go back onto the continent, spitfires taking out V-1s, spitfires that almost single handedly kept up the British moral for years and it was the spitfire that was capable of taking on late war german fighters on a one to one baisis, not the P-51 who had to depend on numbers.................


----------



## red admiral (Apr 30, 2006)

It is futile to suggest that the P-51 is better than the Spitfire simply because of range. The P-51 had quite considerable stability problems on take-off with full tanks. The fuselage tanks caused the CoG to shift quite a bit which made handling worse.

Its not as if the Spitfire didn't have the range. Combine the fuel tanks fitted to all the various marks. Extra 40gals in wings (XIX), 29gal fuselage(VII), 170gal drop tank(XIX) and suddenly you have better range than the P-51 without the problems associated with that aircraft.

Why wasn't this done? Because there was absolutely no need except for PR marks. Can't escort Bomber Command on night sorties and can't escort Mosquitoes by daylight, so why have the extra range at a cost in maneuverability and speed?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 30, 2006)

and besides the spit did escort bomber command on daylight raids into northern France in '44...........


----------



## Gnomey (Apr 30, 2006)

Yes it did, they also escorted the 8th Airforce to the borders of Germany and back (along with P-47's) before the P-51's came into the role.


----------



## plan_D (Apr 30, 2006)

I have to admit, I can see syscom's point quite clearly. The Mustang, Lightning and Corsair did have that large advantage over the Spitfire in that they could take the fight to the enemy. For the PTO this was especially important. And I think where the PTO is concerned, the Spitfire was unimportant. 

However, the importance of range in the ETO and all other theatres that the Western Allies were involved in was not so large. Only from the start of 8th Air Force operations to D-Day was range important. Once the Allies had landed in Europe, the Spitfire could follow the advancing forces and move closer and closer to the enemy. The ground forces moved the Spitfire forward. In Europe, the borders are close giving no need for extensive range. 

In the CBI, the same situation occured. The opposing armies were close, so range was little needed. Even in one circumstance, during Operation Thursday, Spitfires were based BEHIND enemy lines!

The Spitfire was a contender in all one on one combat throughout the entirety of the war. And it served in every single Allied air force, from the USAAF, to the VVS, to the RAF, to the RCAF ... it served in every single theatre of war; in Italy, Russia, England, France, Germany, North Africa, Burma, India, Pacific Ocean and Atlantic Ocean ... the Russians begged for delivery of the Spitfire, the U.S used 'em, the British relied on them and the Germans feared them. Hardly the career of a "also ran" aircraft.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 30, 2006)

Range was a primary consideration of greatness. The Spit escorting bombers to northern France? WOW! Remember that the P38 and P51 were flying into western Poland in search of the Luftwaffe. Now thats impressive. By the time the Spit could get into battle, the P51's and P38's had already destroyed the Luftwaffe.

The Spit was usefull for keeping the bomber and fighter bases safe during takeoff and assembly, but that in itself is not a reason for greatness. A group of Hurricanes or P40's could do the same thing.

In the PTO, range was the master. The CBI was a sideshow. It was the central and SW Pacific where the war was going to be won or lost. And the two fighters that had the range to make the difference was the P38 and F4U. In 1945, the P51H and P47N were far outranging the Spit.


----------



## wmaxt (Apr 30, 2006)

Gnomey said:


> Also ran, the Spitfire was anything but an also ran during the latter half of the war. Sure the P-51's were taking the fight to over German soil but the latter mark Spitfire's were better in almost every department than the P-51's and F4U's apart from one, RANGE.
> 
> For example: Climb Data (at sea level in feet per min):
> P-47: 2,560
> ...



The P-38J/L models had a sea level climb of 4,000ft/min Its average to 20,000ft is 3725ft/min and there is an AAF report of the L model at 4.91 to 20,000ft. 
http://www.spitfireperformance.com (actual flight test of an off the line aircraft) and could out climb the P-51 anywhere. As compared to the Spitfire this site has a P-38F Spit IX comparision,
http://prodocs.netfirms.com please note that the climb data of the P-38 is right in the middle, better than the normal prop reduction and slightly behind the max climb prop reduction. Also the later P-38s were better. 

The P-38s were at va dissadvantage in turn performance above 250mph, below that there are reports of P-38s challenging Zero's on occasion (read the story of John Tilley). Climb performance was only challenged by the Spit and the F4U-4. There is a well known story about a P-38 and a Griffon engined Spit where they started head to head and the P-38 got in all the licks.

I feel that the top piston fighters were the P-38J/L, Spitfire, F4U-4 and Fw-190D (no particular order). In a head to head, more or less equal confrontation any of these aircraft could come out on top, assuming pilots of equal proficency in their aircraft. These aircraft were reaching the pinnacle of piston aircraft no one plane was the best though it could have a particular advantage in a certain situation.

wmaxt


----------



## red admiral (Apr 30, 2006)

> By the time the Spit could get into battle, the P51's and P38's had already destroyed the Luftwaffe.



Nah, the Mosquito had already destroyed the Luftwaffe by day far more efficiently than the P51 or P38.

Personally I'd go with the following for "best" fighter, i.e. what is most likely to win.

Below 10,000ft Hawker Typhoon 
10,000 - 20,000ft Macchi MC.205
Above 20,000ft Spitfire XIV



> There is a well known story about a P-38 and a Griffon engined Spit where they started head to head and the P-38 got in all the licks.



Similar to another well-known story about how a Lancaster outran P-47s repeatedly over Canada?


----------



## delcyros (Jun 6, 2006)

I do think this discussion doesn´t help to answer. If I were a US citizen, I would shift importance to range, in case I would be russian, I would shift importance to low altitude, easy handling, high performance planes. As British fellow, I would put emphasis on a well balanced design with excellent agility and as a german I would prefer pure firepower and high speed...
Shouldn´t we rather choose the best plane for specific purposes? Long range capabilities weren´t important for the Luftwaffe other than 1940. Heavy armament wasn´t important for USAAF escort fighters...
So, I would rather ask, which abilities were important for all contenders equally and then I would like to pick a favourite one...
So, whats important? Speed of course, what else?


----------



## wmaxt (Jun 8, 2006)

delcyros said:


> I do think this discussion doesn´t help to answer. If I were a US citizen, I would shift importance to range, in case I would be russian, I would shift importance to low altitude, easy handling, high performance planes. As British fellow, I would put emphasis on a well balanced design with excellent agility and as a german I would prefer pure firepower and high speed...
> Shouldn´t we rather choose the best plane for specific purposes? Long range capabilities weren´t important for the Luftwaffe other than 1940. Heavy armament wasn´t important for USAAF escort fighters...
> So, I would rather ask, which abilities were important for all contenders equally and then I would like to pick a favourite one...
> So, whats important? Speed of course, what else?



Interesting Idea. Range is a perspective thing on the other hand, as you note, had the Germans had an effective fighter with range they might very well have won the BoB which would have put a very different spin on WWII. Extra range in Russia would have made a difference to.

All fighters need balance but your right about specific capabilities in that as performance peaks more specialization is required for instance speed over climb.

wmaxt


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 11, 2006)

I agree with Del here.

At the same time I disagree with Syscom as well. He said by the time the Spitfires reach combat the P-51s and P-38s had allready destroyed the Luftwaffe. Are you forgetting the fact that if the Spitfires and Hurricanes had not won the Battle of Britain then there would have been no USAAF to destroy the Luftwaffe. Dont tell me they would have gotten aerial refueling and taken off from bases on the east coast.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 11, 2006)

And also dont forget that there were British fighters on European soil in 1945, knocking down all sorts of Luftwaffe fighters, including the -262... Gotta love the Tempest...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 13, 2006)

yes spits weren't just defending airfields sys (although they did defend the american formations whilst they were forming up, without them jerry could easily walk into the forming up bombers and leave a trail of death and destruction as the P-51s wouldn't be ready for them), insted of just repeating what everyone else is saying about how great the spit is, which it is, i'll try a new angle... if the P-51 and P-38 were such magnificent super-fighters capable of taking on any enemy fighter anywhere and always wining without exception, then why didn't the British and other allied air forces use them? The British bought some Mustangs, what was stopping us ditching the spit altogether and re-equiping with just mustangs?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 13, 2006)

Good question. I think one answer lies in the fact that if the British stopped making Spitfires, then that would have hurt the British Industry. You needed jobs for the people. Dont take me wrong, I dont think that is the only answer. I think the Spitfire was a better aircraft overall than the P-51. The P-51 had advantages over the Spit but overall the Spit was a better aircraft.


----------



## hole in the ground (Jun 26, 2006)

right jumping straight into the deep end. (hi all BTW)
The mustangs that Britain used had the un turbo-ed alison engine in it. This proved a poor perfomance at altitude (where bombers live). As such it was re assigned to ground attack duties. 
However with such tankbusters as the Typhoon, it was deemed unnessasery to 'buy' aircraft when home grown ones could do the same job/s as well if not better.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 26, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> .....I think the Spitfire was a better aircraft overall than the P-51. The P-51 had advantages over the Spit but overall the Spit was a better aircraft.



If the Spitfire was so good, how come it didnt fly any missions over Germany untill late 1944?


----------



## plan_D (Jun 26, 2006)

Welcome to the site. 

When Britain aimed to purchase new aircraft from America it believed the US designs inferior to it's own. They rightly believed that the P-39 and P-40 that was on offer was inferior to both the Spitfire and Bf-109. From the outset Britain chose to purchase a low-level fighter-bomber that could free up the Spitfire and Hurricane for the interceptor and fighter sweep roles. 
The NAA produced the Mustang instead, and the RAF first operated the Mustang Mk.I in the Army Co-Operation role as armed recon planes. It was quickly discovered that the plane had the potential as a fighter-bomber, and was equipped with bombs which it could deliver quickly and accurately. 

The Mustang was never re-assigned by the RAF to ground-attack sorties. It was purchased and deployed for that role in the first place. In any case, the F3R Allison engine only dropped the Mustangs performance above 13,000 feet. And in 1941 the RAF were still bombing below 20,000 feet, sometimes down to 1,000 feet. 

You are wrong in your assumption, also, that the RAF only acquired Allison-engined Mustangs. Both the Mustang Mk.IV and IVA (P-51D and K respectively) were in RAF service by the end of the war. 

Picture attached is a line-up of 112 Sqdn. Mustang Mk.IVs. The closest serial is KH832.


----------



## hole in the ground (Jun 27, 2006)

well a good start for me,
fair cop.
I see that i have alot to learn


----------



## mosquitoman (Jun 27, 2006)

Don't worry, you will.

And syscom, the reason no Spits flew over Germany until late 44 was that they COULDN'T GET THERE.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 27, 2006)

Exactly but if you put a Spit up against a P-51D in a dogfight the Spit will win almost every time. The only advantage the P-51D had over the Spit and most aircraft as a matter of fact was its range.


----------



## Hop (Jun 27, 2006)

> If the Spitfire was so good, how come it didnt fly any missions over Germany untill late 1944?



The first Spitfire sortie over Berlin was 14th March 1941. They flew over most of Germany on a frequent basis after that, in the recce role.

The reason they didn't fly fighter sorties over Germany is the same reason USAAF fighters didn't until late 1943. Long range escort required extra tankage, which wasn't fitted until late in the war because a: the RAF was bombing by night, and b: the USAAF thought bombers didn't need escorts.



> And syscom, the reason no Spits flew over Germany until late 44 was that they COULDN'T GET THERE.



Jeffery Quill flew a Spitfire IX fitted with a 75 gallon rear tank and 45 gallon drop tank from Salisbury Plain to the Morray Firth and back, a distance of 1,100 miles. That's the same as East Anglia to Berlin and back. And he did it at 1,000ft, which gives much worse consumption (the weather was bad, so he stayed below the cloud base).

The longest range Spitfire would be the VIII, with 123 gallons internal, a 90 gallon drop tank, and in late production aircraft a 75 gallon rear tank. Fuel consumption was on the order of 10 mpg at minimum speed, 6 mpg at about 310 mph cruise, with easily enough range for Berlin and back.

The thing is, though, the USAAF didn't build a long range escort until they needed one, and the RAF didn't need one at all, so put less effort into it. But giving a fighter much longer range isn't hard, you just need to pack more fuel in, as long as there's room for that (and there was in the Spitfire), extending the range is just a matter of producing the drop tanks and auxilary tanks.


----------



## Glider (Jun 27, 2006)

Hop said:


> The first Spitfire sortie over Berlin was 14th March 1941. They flew over most of Germany on a frequent basis after that, in the recce role.
> 
> The reason they didn't fly fighter sorties over Germany is the same reason USAAF fighters didn't until late 1943. Long range escort required extra tankage, which wasn't fitted until late in the war because a: the RAF was bombing by night, and b: the USAAF thought bombers didn't need escorts.
> 
> ...



Nicely put and hard to disagree with. That said someone will.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 27, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Exactly but if you put a Spit up against a P-51D in a dogfight the Spit will win almost every time. The only advantage the P-51D had over the Spit and most aircraft as a matter of fact was its range.



Range is very important. If you cant fly to where the fight is, then you might as well stay at home.

The P51 still had a fast speed, decent ceiling and adequate handling.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 27, 2006)

In late 1943, if the Spit indeed had those range figures, why did they always stay over Belgium and Holland and not help out over the rest of Germany?


----------



## Hop (Jun 27, 2006)

For exacty the same reason the P-47s did. The big drop tanks were being produced in very small numbers, and the extra internal tanks weren't commonly fitted, because until late 1943 the USAAF had firmly believed the bombers didn't need escorts.

The long range Spitfires, the Spitfire VIIIs, were all sent overseas, where the RAF had need for the extra range. None operated from Britain.

The RAF had other priorities.

There were a few very easy ways of giving the Spitfire IX a moderate range extension.

Firstly, as standard the Spitfire IX had two tanks in the forward fuselage, and nothing else. The top tank was 48 gallons, the bottom 37 gallons, for a total of 85 gallons. However, Spitfire VIIIs had a larger bottom tank, of 47 gallons, for 95 gallons total. There was room for the larger bottom tank from the very first Spitfire I, but the RAF specification called for 85 gallons, and they didn't really feel the need for more.

Towards the end of Spitfire IX production, the larger forward tank was fitted as standard.

The second way was wing tanks. Small wing tanks, in the inboard leading edge, were fitted on the Spitfire VII and VIII and XIV. Again, they could have been fitted early on, some sources say they were fitted to late prouction Spitfire IXs. They added about 28 gallons.

Thirdly, a 30 gallon tank was fitted under the pilot's seat on some recce Spits, and some Spitfire Vs. 

Add those 3 together, which would have been very easy, and you just about double the Spitfire IX range. Add on a 90 gallon drop tank, and instead of the basic load of 85 gallons, you have 243 gallons, which will tripple range.

More difficult to implement was the 75 gallon rear tank, which like the Mustang's, reduced stabiltiy greatly when full. 

But all these things are a matter of demand, not technical difficulty (once engines are powerful enough to lift the weight).


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 28, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Range is very important. If you cant fly to where the fight is, then you might as well stay at home.
> 
> The P51 still had a fast speed, decent ceiling and adequate handling.



Yes but for instance Luftwaffe aircraft by that time did not need the range of the P-51D. They were allready fighting over there own homeland. So an aircraft with less range could still be better than the overated P-51D. 

An aircraft is not good because of the nationality that built it.


----------



## kiwimac (Jun 28, 2006)

Thats certainly true. Was the Spit better than the P-51? Surely that's comparing apples and oranges. The Spit was an interceptor, the P-51 a bomber escort. They each had their roles and they each excelled there. Is that not enough?

Kiwimac


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 28, 2006)

seemingly not......



> In late 1943, if the Spit indeed had those range figures, why did they always stay over Belgium and Holland and not help out over the rest of Germany?



Because the americans were boasting about how great they were doing  besides our war over Germany was at night........


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 28, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Yes but for instance Luftwaffe aircraft by that time did not need the range of the P-51D. They were allready fighting over there own homeland. So an aircraft with less range could still be better than the overated P-51D.
> 
> An aircraft is not good because of the nationality that built it.



The German fighters were good, but not magnitudes better than the allied fighters. If the Luftwaffe had to fight a defensive battle over their own territiry, they were bound to loose. 

If they had the range and capability to bring the fight over Britain for extended times, then they could fight on the offense. Perhaps even regain control of the air.

And that also goes for the Spitfire. 

If you look at all the performace charachteristics of all the fighters, there were only two parameters that counted. Range and high altitude performace. The bombers are at high altitude, so thats where the Luftwaffe has to go up to. Here the US fighters excelled.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 28, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> The German fighters were good, but not magnitudes better than the allied fighters.



Agreed and I never said they were, but the same goes in reverse. The Best Allied fighters were not magnitudes better than the best Luftwaffe aircraft, as you seem to think.



syscom3 said:


> If the Luftwaffe had to fight a defensive battle over their own territiry, they were bound to loose.



And you tell that to the thousands of allied pilots that did not return. The reason they were bound to lose is because of the numerical superiority. It was sometimes 20 to 1 in favor of the allies. You think you can win with those odds? I am sure you are going to say you can.... 



syscom3 said:


> If they had the range and capability to bring the fight over Britain for extended times, then they could fight on the offense. Perhaps even regain control of the air.



No argument there. But that was not going to happen after 1943 anyhow. Besides we are comparing 2 aircraft fighting against each other and your beloved P-51D 1 on 1 vs a Fw-190D or Bf-109G-6 is about an equal fight. Now you thrown in the 20 other P-51D's...



syscom3 said:


> And that also goes for the Spitfire.



1 on 1 Spitfire vs. P-51D and the Spitfire will out roll, out turn, and outfly the P-51D.


----------



## Gnomey (Jun 28, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> 1 on 1 Spitfire vs. P-51D and the Spitfire will out roll, out turn, and outfly the P-51D.



Agreed, as would a Dora and the other German aircraft on par with a Spitfire.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 28, 2006)

_"If they had the range and capability to bring the fight over Britain for extended times, then they could fight on the offense. Perhaps even regain control of the air."_

A foolish comment, syscom. Britain won the battle for it's own airspace because it let the Luftwaffe come to the RAF. This allowed 'home advantage' and more loiter time in the battle area. As well as forcing the Luftwaffe to lose it's pilots when the planes were shot down. Crews are much harder to replace than the planes, and the RAF knew this. 
In situations that the RAF faced, and Luftwaffe faced later on a defensive battle was the best option. Forcing your opponent to fight over your land, and lose his pilots to you. If the Luftwaffe had attempted a prolonged offensive against the RAF in early 1942, the air would have been much shorter. The Luftwaffe would have been losing pilots far faster than in the Battle of Britain. 

The best option was to let the enemy come to them, and exhaust their resources. The RAF let the Luftwaffe bang their heads against a brick wall until the skull caved in. And the Luftwaffe hoped to do the same, and they were succeeding until the introduction of the escort doctrine and the P-51D.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 28, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Agreed and I never said they were, but the same goes in reverse. The Best Allied fighters were not magnitudes better than the best Luftwaffe aircraft, as you seem to think.



Ive always said that all of the aircraft were fairly equal, all things considered, with the exception of range.




> And you tell that to the thousands of allied pilots that did not return. The reason they were bound to lose is because of the numerical superiority. It was sometimes 20 to 1 in favor of the allies. You think you can win with those odds? I am sure you are going to say you can....



All wars are of attrition. And the best way to "attrite" your enemy is to hunt them down and destroy them.




> No argument there. But that was not going to happen after 1943 anyhow. Besides we are comparing 2 aircraft fighting against each other and your beloved P-51D 1 on 1 vs a Fw-190D or Bf-109G-6 is about an equal fight. Now you thrown in the 20 other P-51D's...



Lots of P51's engaged and shotdown -109's and -190's. Same with -38's and -47's.

Dont know if the Spitfire and Mustang ever engaged in a dogfight though.



> 1 on 1 Spitfire vs. P-51D and the Spitfire will out roll, out turn, and outfly the P-51D.



And what if the -51 pilot just wants to out wait his opponant untill he runs low on fuel?


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 28, 2006)

plan_D said:


> A foolish comment, syscom. Britain won the battle for it's own airspace because it let the Luftwaffe come to the RAF. This allowed 'home advantage' and more loiter time in the battle area. As well as forcing the Luftwaffe to lose it's pilots when the planes were shot down. Crews are much harder to replace than the planes, and the RAF knew this.



The RAF won the battle because the -109's had notoriously short range. Imagine if the 109's could loiter for an hour or two over England.



> In situations that the RAF faced, and Luftwaffe faced later on a defensive battle was the best option. Forcing your opponent to fight over your land, and lose his pilots to you. If the Luftwaffe had attempted a prolonged offensive against the RAF in early 1942, the air would have been much shorter. The Luftwaffe would have been losing pilots far faster than in the Battle of Britain.



And the RAF would also be on the defensive, not sweeping the occupied countries within range, and the Luftwaffe would have been able to attack the bomber bases and disrupt them.



> The best option was to let the enemy come to them, and exhaust their resources. The RAF let the Luftwaffe bang their heads against a brick wall until the skull caved in. And the Luftwaffe hoped to do the same, and they were succeeding until the introduction of the escort doctrine and the P-51D.



Noone ever won a war by remaining on the defense. It was the P38's and P51's rangin deep into Germany that broke the back of the Luftwaffe. It was not Spitfires flying over Britain that did it.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 28, 2006)

The RAF won the battle for many reasons, syscom. You should know that, or maybe you haven't been willing to learn from the people on this site. On of the main reasons the RAF won is because the Luftwaffe were losing their pilots, without fail. Because they were either dying or being captured, with no chance of escape. 
In any case, the Bf-109 had 20 minute loiter time over London. Many RAF bases were much further south than London. As much as some Americans might believe, London isn't on the south coast. 

At the rate the Luftwaffe were losing planes to the RAF, they wouldn't have been able to continue the offensive. Great Britain was out-producing Germany in planes, and shooting down more than they were losing. The Luftwaffe would have been trying to attack the bomber bases, and failing. Losing many planes, and good pilots in the process. 

Russia won the war of 1812 against Napoleon, and they didn't attack anyone. In any case, the defensive war was one both the RAF and Luftwaffe had to play at their times. Bringing the enemy to them to lose pilots. If you're honestly in the mindset that the RAF should have attacked the continent during the Battle of Britain, or that the Luftwaffe should have taken Britain and France in 1944 ... you're an idiot.


----------



## Hop (Jun 28, 2006)

> The RAF won the battle because the -109's had notoriously short range. Imagine if the 109's could loiter for an hour or two over England.



Even more of them would get shot down.

The Luftwaffe lost the BoB because they couldn't shoot don enough RAF fighters, and they lost too many of their own fighters. Nothing to do with range.

In fact, if you look at the first phase of the BoB, the air fighting over the channel itself, the Luftwaffe lost that rather handsomely too. And that's when the fighting was only a few miles from their bases.

London is less than 100 miles from the Luftwaffe fighter bases in France. Most of the BoB was fought SE of London, closer to the Luftwaffe fighter bases.

Just to take a few days as examples.

15th August, heaviest days losses for the Luftwaffe. The Luftwaffe claims list shows they claimed victories at:

Folkestone - 13 claims, 24 miles from French coast
Calais - 1 claim. In France
Dover - 14 claims, 21 miles from French coast
Swanage - 2 claims, 65 miles from French coast
Clacton - 3 claims, 65 miles from French coast

There are scattered claims over Kent and the Channel, and some with no location listed. The only other major combats were over Portland, but they were by Bf 110s.

These aren't great distances, and the fact that the Luftwaffe was losing at this stage of the battle shows that it wasn't range that was their problem, it was the funamental fact that they weren't winning enough combats.



> And the RAF would also be on the defensive, not sweeping the occupied countries within range, and the Luftwaffe would have been able to attack the bomber bases and disrupt them.



That didn't work out too well for them in 1940, and every year after that the odds tipped more heavily against them.



> Noone ever won a war by remaining on the defense.



Tactically, the defensive is better, because you lose less. That's true in the air as well as on land. Strategically, of course, you have to go on the offensive to win, but the Germans simply didn't have the resources to do so (not even in 1940, although they didn't realise it)



> It was the P38's and P51's rangin deep into Germany that broke the back of the Luftwaffe. It was not Spitfires flying over Britain that did it.



Well, as Williamson Murray points out in Strategy for Defeat, by the end of 1941 the Luftwaffe had already lost 2 complete air forces. He points out that that meant they had to hurry untrained pilots to the front. By the begining of 1942, only 60% of the Luftwaffe fighter pilots were operational, the rest didn't have the necessary training. Of the 107 German aces who scored more than 100 victories, only 8 went to the front line after mid 1942.

Murray goes on to point out that in May 1940, just before the invasion of France, the Luftwaffe had 1,369 fighters and 1,758 bombers. In Jan 1944 they had 1,561 fighters and 1,604 bombers. They faced, by 1944, a much larger RAF, and the addition of the USAAF and VVS.

As Murray sums it up:

"Further exacerbating this situation was the fact that the
Germans were forced to lower their standards for a fully operational pilot as the war
continued . There was, one must note, no decisive moment in this decline in
expertise. Rather as Winston Churchill has suggested in another context, the
Luftwaffe had entered the descent from 1940 "incontinently, fecklessly. . . . It is a
fine broad stairway at the beginning but after a bit the carpet ends . A little further
on, there are only flagstones ; and a little further on, these break beneath your
feet . "

The Luftwaffe began declining in strength relative to the opposition during the BoB. They never really recovered, and ended 1941 in a worse position than 1940, 1942 was worse than 1941, and so on.


----------



## Henk (Jun 28, 2006)

No, I would say that if the Bf-109 had greater range and was not used as a fighter bomber it would have broken the back of the RAF and if they bombed more RAF bases.


----------



## Gnomey (Jun 29, 2006)

I would disagree Henk. As Hop as pointed out the Germans were planes close to their bases where range wasn't too much of a problem. A longer range for the 109 would mean more time over the danger area and more time to get shot down. As the RAF were shooting down more with the 109's short range they would of shot down more if the longer range had given them more opportunity to shoot them down. Attacking the bases with 109's in the fighter bomber role would cause substantional losses (as occured when the Allied fighters strafed German airfields in 1944/45). Most of the time after the Germans bombed RAF bases they where up and running again in a few hours (or used near by airfields), there were only a few times when a base was out of action for more than 24 hours (I think a few of the main bases were (Biggin Hill, Kenley, Manston) after particularly heavy raids but they were only knocked out for more than 24 hours once or twice in the course of the Battle of Britain. Whatever way you look at the Germans couldn't sustain the losses they were suffering at the hands of the RAF and longer ranged fighters would not of made much of a difference.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 29, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> All wars are of attrition. And the best way to "attrite" your enemy is to hunt them down and destroy them.



Agreed, no argument. However we are comparing one plane against another not 20 against one. You take 19 of those P-51D's away and it comes down to pilot skill, and in the cases of some aircraft luck for the P-51D because we all know it was not the best turn fighter or had the best maneuverability.



syscom3 said:


> Lots of P51's engaged and shotdown -109's and -190's. Same with -38's and -47's.



And lots of P-51s, P-38s, and P-47s were shot down by 109s and 190s. What is your point. That is no point! 



syscom3 said:


> And what if the -51 pilot just wants to out wait his opponant untill he runs low on fuel?



The Spitfire decides to stop toying around with the P-51 and outmanuever it and shoot the ****er down!



Hop said:


> The Luftwaffe lost the BoB because they couldn't shoot don enough RAF fighters, and they lost too many of their own fighters. Nothing to do with range.



The Luftwaffe was shooting down plenty of Spitfires and Hurricanes. The Luftwaffe lost the BoB because of a change in strategy from bombing strategic sites such as airfields and factories to bombing cities such as London. If they had continued to take out the aircraft factories instead of apartments they could have damaged the British aircraft industry and put the British on there knees which is where they almost had them.


----------



## red admiral (Jun 29, 2006)

> The Luftwaffe was shooting down plenty of Spitfires and Hurricanes. The Luftwaffe lost the BoB because of a change in strategy from bombing strategic sites such as airfields and factories to bombing cities such as London. If they had continued to take out the aircraft factories instead of apartments they could have damaged the British aircraft industry and put the British on there knees which is where they almost had them.



The problem for the RAF was the number of pilots, not the number of aircraft. By the stage of the Luftwaffe switching to London, Ministry of Aircraft Production had things nicely in order. Aircraft were ordered in the morning and delivered by the afternoon.

The way for the Luftwaffe to win the BoB is either more aircraft or better aircraft. Longer range means worse aircraft so more get shot down, and more losses from ack-ack and other combat area problems. Given twice as many aircraft or Fw190s in 1940 and there would be more of a fight.


----------



## Henk (Jun 29, 2006)

Ok I see what you mean Gnomey, but like Adler said if the Germans kept on bombing the aircraft factory's and airfields would forced the RAF on there knees.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 29, 2006)

Longer range for the German fighters would have meant they could have loitered around waiting the the RAF to get to the bombers and then fight them without having to go home early.

Same with the Spit.... Longer range means you can engage the bombers from further out.


----------



## Hop (Jun 29, 2006)

The RAF didn't want to engage the bombers further out, they lost too many pilots in the Channel that way. And warning of raids was rarely early enough to enable interceptions at sea, anyway.



> Longer range for the German fighters would have meant they could have loitered around waiting the the RAF to get to the bombers and then fight them without having to go home early.



They didn't have to go home early. The problem with the German fighters is that they didn't have an escort doctrine, they saw the bombers as bait, and if they weren't in a favourable enough position for an attack, they didn't. (hence the eventual, after the battle was lost, tying of the fighters close to the bombers)

But again, the point is the combats were close to the German bases, and fuel wasn't really an issue. Only when the battle switched to London did it become so, and even then the 109s had as much combat time over London as the USAAF allowed over Berlin.

And it wasn't a case of the fighters going home, and the bombers getting slaughtered. The Luftwaffe was suffering unsustainable losses of fighters. It wasn't a case of the fighters not getting to the battle, the fighters were getting into heavy combat all the time, hence the thousands of claims they made, it was that they weren't shooting down enough RAF fighters, and losing too many of their own.

Once again, as the point seems to get ignored, in the Channel phase of the Bob, 10th July to 11th August, when the battle was over the channel (which is only a few miles from German bases), the RAF beat the Luftwaffe. 10th July - 11th August the RAF lost 115 fighters in combat, the Luftwaffe lost 88 fighters and 216 aircraft in total in combat. For the RAF, which was focusing on the bombers, it was a success rate of nearly 2 to 1, despite being heavily outnumbered.



> Ok I see what you mean Gnomey, but like Adler said if the Germans kept on bombing the aircraft factory's and airfields would forced the RAF on there knees.



Only if the Luftwaffe had unlimited fighters and pilots. They didn't, their numbers were more limited than the RAF's, and they were always closer to defeat than the RAF. At no stage of the battle, no matter what the targets, were the Luftwaffe actually "wining". At one stage they managed to inflict unsustainable losses on the RAF, but only at the cost of incurring even more unsustainable losses themselves.



> The Luftwaffe was shooting down plenty of Spitfires and Hurricanes.



Never quite enough. 

Stephen Bungay in The Most Dangerous Enemy has a couple of tables showing the most successfull days for the Luftwaffe, and the days of heaviest fighting. First the best days for the Luftwaffe:

Date RAF loss Luftwaffe loss Ratio
19 July - 10 - 4 - 2.5:1
7 Aug - 4 - 3 - 1.3:1
11 Sept - 27 - 21 - 1.3:1
14 Sept - 11 - 8 - 1.4:1
28 Sept - 16 - 4 - 4:1

As you can see, on these days the Luftwaffe managed to down more RAF aircraft than they lost. But all these days were fairly quiet, with only small losses. The Luftwaffe could not win with days like these, they needed to inflict much higher losses on the RAF.

Now on to the 5 days of heaviest fighting:

Date RAF loss Luft loss ratio
15 Aug 32 - 75 - 2.3:1
18 Aug 34 - 69 - 2:1
31 Aug 37 - 33 - 1:1
15 Sept 28 - 56 - 2:1
27 Sept 29 - 57 - 2:1

On all but one of the heaviest days fighting, the RAF won by a large margin. It's days like these that decided the battle, because the casualties were so high.

On the quiet days, with only a few combats, the Luftwaffe could sometimes do well. On the days of heavy fighting, the Luftwaffe almost always did badly, losing twice as many aircraft as the RAF.



> The Luftwaffe lost the BoB because of a change in strategy from bombing strategic sites such as airfields and factories to bombing cities such as London.



No, they lost it before they switched to London. They started the battle with far more fighter pilots than the RAF, and greater front line strength. By September, they had frittered away that advantage, and had about the same front line fighter strength as the RAF, with fewer reserves and a much worse replacement rate.


----------



## Henk (Jun 29, 2006)

Well syscom3 I will agree with you there.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Jun 29, 2006)

Well the fact that the RAF was losing aircraft in a material sense was not too big of a deal, Britain had factories that were sh**ting out planes every day, it was the loss of pilots and the difficulty finding replacements for them that was hurting them.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 29, 2006)

> They didn't have to go home early.



The -109's were always short legged. I dont think 20 minutes endurance over England is exactly benificial.

Just think if the -109's had up to an hour of endurance. They could have hunted the RAF all over England.


----------



## hole in the ground (Jun 30, 2006)

i think the main point that every one seems to be missing is that with the exception of the Kriegsmarine all of the german armed forces were geared up for blitzkriege. 
There simply was no way that an airforce designed (and it was designed) to be used as ground support could've carried out any strategic bombing campaign. The german tactics required the airforce to bomb the **** out of the enemy positions and let the armoured and mechanised divisions roll over them. Unfortunately tanks don't float (ok some do but not these ones).
Loss of men was the biggest limiting factor for the RAF but why should that be any different from Germany, besides britain had the whole commonwealth and america to call upon for volunteers. 
Another reason that the Germans were doomed to fail was their meddleing leader. The BoB wasn't lost over London or the Channel it was lost over the steppes of Russia. Britain was defending a small corner with a concentrated force. Germany was stretched over most of the europe.

[waiting for the axes to fall on the outstreched neck]


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 30, 2006)

U make some valid key points, but the bottom line is that if the Luftwaffe and Goring had kept up with their systimatic destruction of Englands airfields and aircrcraft manufacturing facilities, air supremacy would have been accomplished and the BOB would have been decided... A HUGE what if....

Granted, the German Army was in no posistion to make a Channel crossing, but the RAF would have been elimated as a threat....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 30, 2006)

Atleast for the time being.


----------



## Soren (Jun 30, 2006)

I'm with syscom3 on this one.

Many 109's were shot down as result of its short range, simply being chased down by RAF Spitfire's with plenty of fuel which allowed them to catch up with the now cruising 109's. 

Fact is if the 109 entered any kind of combat situation during its stay over Britain, even if it occurred as early as Dover, it would seriously cut down its stay over England if it was to be able to return to home base. Hop doesn't seem to want to recognize this however...


----------



## 102first_hussars (Jun 30, 2006)

People have been talking about the destruction of the RAF during the BOB alot, well I read somewhere that the objective was not to destroy the RAF, but more simply force the RAF further north more towards Scotland, if that was the case I think an invasion of England was as propable as a Allied Invasion of Normandy, of course the Germans had nowhere near as many ships, but during D-day the Luftwaffe was never actually destroyed it was moved forced further in land


----------



## plan_D (Jul 1, 2006)

You all seem to be forgetting that all of the RAF wasn't in the Battle of Britain. A simple rotation of squadrons would have brought the RAF numbers against the Luftwaffe up again, in any stage. 
The Bf-109 has 20 minutes over London, but most of the combat took place before London. The Luftwaffe was attacking bases, and ports on the south coast which is many miles away from London. Dover is 26 miles away from Calais! If the Luftwaffe attacked Dover, they would have plenty of time over target. But they would have still been shot down in droves, as they were. 

The Luftwaffe lost the fight for far more reasons that because the Bf-109 had short legs. Even if the Bf-109 had longer range, it would still be escorting the bombers up-close which would force the fight around the bomber formation. Bad idea ! Once you let the interceptors into the formation, you're going to lose bombers. And the RAF wanted the bombers, getting the fighters was a bonus.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 1, 2006)

The -109 was still marginally better than the Spit, and a heck of a lot better than the Hurricane.

If the -109's had longer legs, then they could have had all the more time to chase after the RAF. Not to mention provide all the time required for the bombers to do their work.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 1, 2006)

That I will agree with fully. In my opinion that was really the only downfall the 109 had.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 1, 2006)

The Bf-109 was not better than the Spitfire, especially not in the situations it found itself in where the combat was taking place around the bombers. The Spitfire pilots would often out-turn the Bf-109 because the slats on the Bf-109 were faulty and even if they worked would scare the pilots not to turn that tightly again. 
More often than not, when the Luftwaffe was attacking British shipping and southern air bases the Bf-109 provided escort there and back. But the bombers were still being shot down due to the fact that the Luftwaffe lacked the escort doctrine, the escorts allowed the fight to take place in and around the bombers. 
The twisting and turning Hurricanes, would out-turn the Bf-109s and find themselves on the tail or in a shooting position against the bombers. No matter how long the Bf-109s had in the air, if they stuck next to the bombers like they did in reality the battle would have still been lost. 

The Hurricane and Spitfire went up against the German formations that were often ten times their size. They attacked the formations and achieved greater kills than losses, against a foe that was near it's base and coming straight at them. If the Spitfire and Hurricane were both marginally and considerably inferior to the Bf-109 respectively, each British pilot deserves a VC for beating the sh*t out of the Luftwaffe and sending them back to the Continent each and everyday. 

The shortcomings of the Bf-109 are far beyond lack of range. And the failure of the Luftwaffe to achieve victory go far beyond the Bf-109s lack of range.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 1, 2006)

The Bf-109 and the Spitfire were pretty much equals throughout the war however at the time of the BoB the 109 had the edge.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 1, 2006)

Theoretically, but not practically. In combat, the faults of the Bf-109 brought it down to equal when it could have easily been a superior. The major fault was the leading edge slats that jammed when deployed, which meant the Bf-109 would not out-turn the Spitfire as it theoretically could on paper. On top of that, the slats put fear into a lot of young of the Bf-109 which would make them avoid tight turns as they thought the loud bang of the slat deploying was something bad. 
The Bf-109 had the speed advantage, but the Spitfire would out-climb and out-turn it's opponent. In the turning fights that often ensued around the bomber formations, this gave the Spitfire an equal playing field. And the Bf-109s often only got the real edge with an experienced pilot in the cockpit that knew not to fear the slats deploying.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 1, 2006)

I believe the 109 would outclimb the Spitfire as well and the problem with the slats was fixed later. 

The advantages the 109 had during the BoB were speed, rate of climb, and fuel injection.
The advantages of the Spit was maneuverability (but not much at the time of the BoB) and radar vector.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 1, 2006)

In 1940, the moment the Spit went into inverted flight, the engine quit. Plus the -109's armorment was far superior to the .303's the Spit had.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 1, 2006)

The problem with the leading-edge slats was not fixed until the _Friedich_ and the problem with novice pilots being scared of the sound was never fixed. Although I'm sure it was greatly improved. 

The two tactical advantages worth mentioning were the superior armament and fuel injection. Although, syscoms, claim that "...the moment the Spit went into inverted flight, the engine quit." is wrong. The engine would cut out during sustained inverted flight. 

In August, 1940, the Bf-109E-7 began to arrive at fighter units. This plane could carry 66-Imp gal drop-tank on the center-line. This would have been more than enough to solve the terrible range of the Bf-109. When the Bf-109s were allowed free-roam (freie Jagd) over southern England they had considerable success. The flexiable formations and tactics of the Luftwaffe pilots allowed them to take a considerable toll on the rigid formations of the RAF, albeit when the RAF adopted the finger-four formation results for the RAF improved. 
This period of freie Jagd for the Bf-109E proved that range was, in fact, not a problem. But the problem lay in the tactical error of forcing the Bf-109 to escort the bombers. The Bf-109 was then forced to become tied to the bombers, and lost it's tactical flexability. Now the Bf-109s were being out-turned in and around the bombers by both the Hurricane and Spitfire, and instead of being the hunters, had become the hunted. The Bf-109 was designed to use slash attacks from a great height to get the opponent, but the tactical error of close escort left the Bf-109 vulnerable to them. 

I have changed my mind, however, and have come to the conclusion that the Bf-109 had the slight edge because of it's fuel injection and cannon armament. As the Spitfire armament was unacceptable. Howver, the tactical role played by the Bf-109 as a close escort made this superiority unimportant as they were left to become bait for the Spitfire while tied to the bombers.


----------



## Hop (Jul 2, 2006)

> Fact is if the 109 entered any kind of combat situation during its stay over Britain, even if it occurred as early as Dover, it would seriously cut down its stay over England if it was to be able to return to home base. Hop doesn't seem to want to recognize this however.



The problem with this theory is that the RAF had it's best exchange rate during the convoy battles phase of the BoB, when the fighting was taking place over the channel (and closest to German bases). It did a bit worse during the airfields campaign, and a bit worse again during the London phase. In short, the RAF's losses got higher, and the Luftwaffe's lower, as the fighting progressed further from the coast. There are good reasons for that, of course, but it indicates that fuel wasn't a major contributor.



> You all seem to be forgetting that all of the RAF wasn't in the Battle of Britain. A simple rotation of squadrons would have brought the RAF numbers against the Luftwaffe up again, in any stage.



The RAF fighter numbers in 11 Group (the one that directly opposed the Luftwaffe) never fell. The Luftwaffe fighter numbers fell almost from the start of the battle.



> If the -109's had longer legs, then they could have had all the more time to chase after the RAF.



That's the point. They didn't "chase" the RAF. The RAF chased them. The biggest constraint on the 109 was lack of ammunition capacity. They had only 6 seconds of cannon ammo, after which they were reduced to 2 mgs.



> I believe the 109 would outclimb the Spitfire as well and the problem with the slats was fixed later.



Depends on altitude. At lower alts, the Spitfire had a large speed and climb advantage, thanks to the Merlin's power (1310 hp vs less than 1,100 for the Db601). At higher altitudes, the Spitfire still held a speed advantage, although I believe climb went narrowly to the 109. 

The later E7 was faster at altitude, but they only served in tiny numbers during the BoB.



> In August, 1940, the Bf-109E-7 began to arrive at fighter units. This plane could carry 66-Imp gal drop-tank on the center-line. This would have been more than enough to solve the terrible range of the Bf-109. When the Bf-109s were allowed free-roam (freie Jagd) over southern England they had considerable success. The flexiable formations and tactics of the Luftwaffe pilots allowed them to take a considerable toll on the rigid formations of the RAF, albeit when the RAF adopted the finger-four formation results for the RAF improved.
> This period of freie Jagd for the Bf-109E proved that range was, in fact, not a problem. But the problem lay in the tactical error of forcing the Bf-109 to escort the bombers. The Bf-109 was then forced to become tied to the bombers, and lost it's tactical flexability.



Luftwaffe memoirs tend to put the blame for their defeats on Goering, in the same way army generals blamed Hitler. The truth is, close escort was not enforced by Goering until some time in September, after the Luftwaffe had lost. It was ordered because the Luftwaffe fighters had proved incapable of defending bomberws whilst using frei jagd tactics.

In fact, as late as 19th August, Goering was still suggesting more frei jagds, and stressing that the tactics be left to the 109 gruppen commanders:



> In the actual conduct of operations, commanders of fighter units must be given as free a hand as possible. Only part of the fighters are to be employed as direct escorts to our bombers. The aim must be to employ the strongest possible fighter forces on free-lance operations, in which they can indirectly protect the bombers, and at the same time come to grips under favourable conditions with the enemy fighters. No rigid plan can be laid down for such operations, as their conduct must depend on the changing nature of enemy tactics, and on weather conditions.



The Luftwaffe bombers suffered a 7.5% casualty ratio in August. To put that in perspective, the 8th AF suffered about 6.5% losses in October 1943, when they tried unescorted deep penetrations into Germany. 



> I have changed my mind, however, and have come to the conclusion that the Bf-109 had the slight edge because of it's fuel injection and cannon armament.



One thing most people don't realise about the BoB is that 40% of the 109s in the battle were E1s, with no cannon and only 4 rifle calibre machine guns, half the firepower of the Spitfire or Hurricane.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 2, 2006)

Hop said:


> One thing most people don't realise about the BoB is that 40% of the 109s in the battle were E1s, with no cannon and only 4 rifle calibre machine guns, half the firepower of the Spitfire or Hurricane.



That means 60% were not.


----------



## hole in the ground (Jul 3, 2006)

50% of people make up half the population
73.53% of all percentages are made up on the spot


----------



## mosquitoman (Jul 3, 2006)

There are lies, there are damn lies and then there are syscom's statistics


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 4, 2006)




----------



## Soren (Jul 5, 2006)

Hop,

You do realize that the 109E had approximately 5-10 min worth of fuel to play around with once it reached London, right ? And this is without having engaged in combat even once.

The reason the LW lost the BoB is like nearly everyone here has been trying to tell you - the 109E's lack of range and Göring's silly change of tactics.


----------



## red admiral (Jul 5, 2006)

The reason the RAF won the Battle of Britain was that they shot down more planes than they lost and they could replace their losses. Losses of pilots put the Luftwaffe in an even worse position.


----------



## delcyros (Jul 5, 2006)

...true. But did it helped them tactically? The RAF losses over France in 1941-42 were extremely high in comparison to the Luftwaffe losses there. So, I conclude that the RAF Spits Hurr. shared the same problems in retrospect.
By the way, 40% of the Jaflieg were E-1 but how many of the RAF were Spitfires? You know the answer.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 5, 2006)

The percentage of E-1 was only to show us that 40% of the Luftwaffe's fighter force over Britain had *half* the firepower of the Spitfire or Hurricane. 

There's countless reasons why Battle of Britain turned out the way it did. I've always heard that the Bf-109 had 20 minutes loiter over London.


----------



## Soren (Jul 6, 2006)

That would be Dover.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 6, 2006)

I've always heard 20 minutes over London. Care to provide anything to the contrary?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 6, 2006)

Ive heard the same as well. I thought it was a little bit more over the southern parts of England.


----------



## Soren (Jul 7, 2006)

Well 5-10 min is what I've been hearing from vets through the years, and its also pretty consistent in books about it - And the Emil's range certainly seems to suggest it as-well..

The Emil has 95min of endurance at 2/3's rated power (Cruise setting), and it takes approx. 45min to get to London from the French coast at the Emil's cruising speed - 400 kph.


----------



## Hop (Jul 7, 2006)

> The Emil has 95min of endurance at 2/3's rated power (Cruise setting), and it takes approx. 45min to get to London from the French coast at the Emil's cruising speed - 400 kph



Cruising speed at 2/3 power would be well above 400 km/h.

Max speed on the Emil was about 570 km/h. 2/3 speed would equal 375 km/h, and speed is not linear with power. 

2/3 power should give about 470 km/h in the Emil, by my "very rough) calculations. 

Central London is about 135 km from the French coast, at a fast cruise of 470 km/h that would take about 17 mins

20 minutes combat would use about 100 litres. 

If you use 100 litres in combat, 100 litres to warmup, takeoff, climb to altitude and reserve, that gives you 200 litres left, or half your endurance time, to cruise to and from target. So, about 22 minutes cruise endurance each way, which still allows 20 minutes combat over central London, with some extra reserves (for example climbing to height after combat is over for the cruise home). (20 minutes combat is what USAAF fighters assumed in their flight planning)

It certainly didn't allow the Luftwaffe to go much north of London, and if the RAF had pulled their fighters north of London it would have put the Luftwaffe in a very awkward position, but as the RAF remained in the SE, the 109 had the range to engage them effectively. Whilst fuel was a bit tight over London, for most of the battle over Kent and the channel, fuel wasn't really an issue at all.


----------



## Soren (Jul 7, 2006)

Hop,

The Bf-109E has a cruising speed of 400 kph, which is achieved at 2/3's rated power.

London is approx. 200 km from the French coast - ~40-45min's taking climb to altitude into consideration.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 7, 2006)

Anyway you look at it, its still not much endurance.

I maintain that if the -109's had more endurance, they could have had longer escort times for the bombers and wouldnt have to break off contact(s) so soon to return back to base. The RAF loss's would have increased.


----------



## red admiral (Jul 7, 2006)

Are there instances of Bf 109s breaking for home before the bombers?

Most of the targets being bombed were much closer to France than London. Tangmere, Biggin Hill and other airfields in 11 group being only a couple of miles from the coast.

Even so the RAF could have just fell back to 10 and 12 group and actually fought over SE England.

The Es speed at 2/3 throttle (740hp) is ~500kph not 400kph. The relationship between power and Vmax is cubed.


----------



## Hop (Jul 7, 2006)

> London is approx. 200 km from the French coast



London is a good deal closer than that, particulary the SE of London, which is what the Luftwaffe was mostly bombing.

Here's a map showing a 200 km radius from the Pas de Calais (about 12 km inland, ie the line would be 12 km further into England if taken from the coast)







Notice it goes way beyond even NW London. It's actualy 52 km beyond docklands in London, and 12 km back from the coast, so coast to docklands should be 136 km from the French coast.



> The Bf-109E has a cruising speed of 400 kph, which is achieved at 2/3's rated power.


I can't understand that claim.

Drag, and thus power required, goes up with the square of speed, ie double the speed requires 4 times the power. If Bf 109E max speed was about 570 km/h, which I believe it was, then 2/3 power should give a cruising speed of about 465 km/h (I've recalculated)

465 km/h * 1.225 = 570 km/h

If power = 1000 (units unimportant) then 2/3 power = 666

666 * 1.225 * 1.225 = 999 power

In other words, if the drag goes up with the square of speed, which it does, the Emil should cruise at 465 km/h at 2/3 power if speed at maximum power = 570 km/h


----------



## Soren (Jul 7, 2006)

Bloody ****, measured from the wrong beachhead, sorry about that Hop 

However about that map Hop, are you sure you have measured that correctly ? I used google's map, and measured the distance as ~160km from Dunkerque. Google Maps

I guess that would leave fuel for about ~5-10min of 'combat' over London before having to go home, not nearly enough time to prove an effective protection for the bombers however. And had the bombers already once been intercepted before London, then the 109 fighters would already be leaving for home once London was reached. And indeed allot of LW fighters got bagged whilst running for home - both German and British vets testify to that. 

And about the Emil's cruising speed, well 400 kph is what nearly every one of my sources quote, some others even have it as 375 kph...


----------



## red admiral (Jul 8, 2006)

Cruising speed might be 400kph, well it probably is, it just isn't achieved at 2/3rds power.

Hop, The relationship between power and speed is cubed for the large proportion of the flight envelope. Lots of details here and here if you are interested.


----------



## davparlr (Jul 8, 2006)

Hop said:


> London is a good deal closer than that, particulary the SE of London, which is what the Luftwaffe was mostly bombing.
> 
> Here's a map showing a 200 km radius from the Pas de Calais (about 12 km inland, ie the line would be 12 km further into England if taken from the coast)
> 
> ...



I didn't check out the math but your logic is correct. I suspect that, if indeed 400 km/h was stated as 2/3 power it was probably some sort of power setting (rpm, manifold pressure, throttle angle, etc.) which did not reflect linearly with engine power output. Or it could just be an error.


----------



## wmaxt (Jul 9, 2006)

The power output of any piston engine is a curve. That curve is optimized to place max power at the point where it is most usefull. 2/3 throttle may represent 40% power while 85% throttle may be 90% power these *examples* are dependant on cam/ignition timing, boost, type of boost, fuel, and the designated use the combination is set up for. Throttle/Power is only linear in jet engines and then only after a certain power output is reached (maybe Flyboy can enlighten us on that score) 

wmaxt


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 9, 2006)

wmaxt said:


> The power output of any piston engine is a curve. That curve is optimized to place max power at the point where it is most usefull. 2/3 throttle may represent 40% power while 85% throttle may be 90% power these *examples* are dependant on cam/ignition timing, boost, type of boost, fuel, and the designated use the combination is set up for. Throttle/Power is only linear in jet engines and then only after a certain power output is reached (maybe Flyboy can enlighten us on that score)
> 
> wmaxt


Jet engines are "trimmed" on the ground to give a certain thrust at a given RPM (temperature and density altitude is also considered). If the maintainer trims the engine within the required parameters, the pilot should see a certain speed, EPR, and fuel flow at a specific altitude and the aircraft should see all this at a specificed true airspeed. All of this is designed into the aircraft (at least the ones I've worked with). There are some exceptions but this is the norm for jet aircraft.


----------



## JonJGoldberg (Jul 16, 2006)

Hey guys…finally felt like posting fer ‘real’ again!

Some personal catching up (briefly), then on to the 109 (which to some my post will be as long winded as usual; hehe.)

Started a website of my own; I have a bit more insight as to the work time it takes… Hats off to all WW2 aircraft.net staff… One day I may be as good… 

To anyone interested, visit me…

The CFS2 Flight Deck
Join… Membership is free… Placed a thread here in the Gaming Section >>>
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/cfs-i-ii-iii/line-action-cfs-2-flight-deck-4316.html
Bring your CFS-2 game with you if you come to the Deck… We do TCP/IP gaming… Nothing formal…
Most any kite is ok…

The Me-109… Yeah; ‘cept during its introduction, when it dominated its opponents, say through the battle of France, she represents an aviation enigma to me. For most of her career she seemed ‘the number two’ choice… I believe she was under utilized due to her unfortunate 2nd choice position.

(Theory) For example: If she were favored to the Bf-110, the Germans might have stumbled across two important ‘tactics’ long before the 8th air force; the relaying of escort fighters, the hunt of any enemy fighter using as bait the bombers possibly their 110 escorts as well.

Regardless of my own personal thoughts… fact is this 109 was a victim of underutilization, to being restrained to tactics ill suited to its strengths, in a manner, to me repetitive of Napoleon’s mistake… When Napoleon saw the British’s Line Abreast, his decision to charge up the middle was, in the safety of history’s hindsight, an impetuous mistake, much like the Germans attaching ‘slash’ fighters to the confinement of the bombers. Maybe the discovery of the advantages of using the appearance of unescorted bombers as ‘bait’ was destined to be American… As the Bayonet Box formation completely castrated Napoleon’s numerically overwhelming Calvary charge a Line Abreast formation was a tactical stroke of genius as it neatly exposed French field regiment’s waste of man firepower. The Germans remained ‘blind’ of their abuses. Nope…for all intent for all to see they neatly allowed themselves to be ‘radar-vectored’ once again the Brits saw a column or consolidation; once again the British (masters at this I believe) developed a ‘counter-formation’ that gave England her 1st ‘credited’ victory. Shame if you are the Me-109, for if allowed the exploitation of her strengths, during her height, during the BOB; well she clearly would have been the single greatest fighter of WW2.

Stand alone as a weapon, the ME-109 was outstanding, and ‘competitive’ throughout the war; no easy nor small accomplishment, however as accomplished as she was, as a package, again, she was the finest 2nd choice fighter in the field, a 2nd choice that bested some adversaries ‘front line fighters’... But Germany offers another platform clearly superior to the 109, when viewed by specification or ‘empirical’ performance; around since nearly the beginning of the war as well… The Fw-190. Actual historical contribution, to me defined as ‘if missing/or allowed to mature the war would be different’. The Fw-190; historically, if she were not produced…wow! What a hole… Germany would have lost much much sooner. We could talk more of 190s the derivatives or offshoots; but IMHO Germany also was the only country to field jets (Yes, the Meteor was in service… big woop on the V-1 kills –not in any way meant to minimize their their pilots actual contribution, just meant to properly ‘weight’ them within this discussion-). This ‘Contribution’ transcends WW2, as does the A-bomb. The Me-262, engine problems all I believe wins the ‘historical’ category as clearly as the performance and firepower categories. As a weapon, the Me-109 was neither held back from maturing as a design, nor IMHO would it have been greatly missed if never produced; if missing would it have significantly changed the war’s outcome? IMHO Germany’s losing entries to the position awarded the 109, were not bad ‘runners-up’ would have matured into fine combatants. Me-109s were historically ‘replaceable’. But, IMHO, historically, as the 262 was fielded in number, feared above any other ‘fighter’ of it’s time by every Allied ETO bomber pilot... Targeted by every fighter jock in the European Theater… Relentlessly hunted by every victorious ‘power’, it was, without doubt the soul contribution of the Me-262 that most ‘know of’ weather expert, or novice; what we all ‘bring to mind’ 1st, when told of the introduction of the ‘Jet Fighter’. Sure, you may argue that another aircraft, say the Meteor, or P-80, would have held that crown if not the 262. …But then the jet would therefore then not be a weapon of WW2 at all, it was under test, or in ‘pre-deployment’ duds, they represented technological possibilities undergoing final ‘tweaking’, all except the 262


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 16, 2006)

Welcome back. Interesting take on the 109. I agree with you on a lot of it. Enjoyed reading it.


----------



## redcoat (Aug 16, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> I maintain that if the -109's had more endurance, they could have had longer escort times for the bombers and wouldnt have to break off contact(s) so soon to return back to base. The RAF loss's would have increased.


The Bf 109's range only became a factor when the Luftwaffe switched to attacking London, before then the 109's range wasn't a problem while attacking the RAF's 11 Group airfields , they had enough to both escort the bombers and engage in combat.


----------



## Soren (Dec 23, 2006)

Jon has a point, we have been missing the Me-262 which infact - considering pure performance and hgh speed handling - is the best fighter of the war. 

And about the Meteor, well thank god for its pilots that they didn't have to go up against the Me-262 - they would've been squashed. 

The Vampire was a far better match.


----------



## davparlr (Dec 23, 2006)

The biggest problem I have with the Me-262 is its configuration. While it definitely made obsolete all the previous fighters, it was technilogical dead end similar to the CSS Virginia, would instantaneously made wooden ships obsolete, nevertheless did not advance past the Civil War. The P-80 configuration, which integrated the engine into the airframe, was clearly superior and can be seen in modern aircraft. The configuration of the Me-262, and the Meteor, did not advance very far after the war and died out with the YAK-25/28 (there may have been some French copies). What did make a major impact on future aircraft design was German advance aircraft design work including swept wing and possible the axial flow jet engine (I don't know much about engine development). Among the WWII fighters, the Me-262 was head and shoulders above their capability, and, if they were introduce enmasse before D-day, the war could certainly have been impacted against the allies. However, it would have soon been surpassed by both allied jet fighter development and by contemporary German jet fighter development (I think Germany would have maintained a lead in jet fighter technology until the allies applied the weight of its industry to jet fighter development). All in all, it was an impressive aircraft that surpassed contemporary designs, it just didn't have a lot of places to go as a fighter.


----------



## Soren (Dec 23, 2006)

davparlr said:


> The biggest problem I have with the Me-262 is its configuration. While it definitely made obsolete all the previous fighters, it was technilogical dead end similar to the CSS Virginia, would instantaneously made wooden ships obsolete, nevertheless did not advance past the Civil War. The P-80 configuration, which integrated the engine into the airframe, was clearly superior and can be seen in modern aircraft. The configuration of the Me-262, and the Meteor, did not advance very far after the war and died out with the YAK-25/28 (there may have been some French copies). What did make a major impact on future aircraft design was German advance aircraft design work including swept wing and possible the axial flow jet engine (I don't know much about engine development). Among the WWII fighters, the Me-262 was head and shoulders above their capability, and, if they were introduce enmasse before D-day, the war could certainly have been impacted against the allies. However, it would have soon been surpassed by both allied jet fighter development and by contemporary German jet fighter development (I think Germany would have maintained a lead in jet fighter technology until the allies applied the weight of its industry to jet fighter development). All in all, it was an impressive aircraft that surpassed contemporary designs, it just didn't have a lot of places to go as a fighter.



I disagree somewhat, as the P-80 would've fallen prey to the Me-262 as-well had they ever met.

The Me-262 incoperated so much new technology into one that although having two outboard engines was a small, and I mean SMALL disadvantage, all the new extra features more than made up for that. Besides although the P-80 featured a fuselage mounted engine it lost allot of thrust because of the lenght of the air-intake, something the Germans already knew from experiments - hence the outboard engine placements on their serviceable jets. The P-80 was also at a serious disadvantage in wing design, having alot more drag to deal with, esp. at high speeds - and the fact that the Me-262 featured full span slats for slow speed fighting and the P-80 didn't, certainly didn't help matters for the USAAF either.

And worthy of note is also that the actual production version of the P-80 was far less nimble than YP-80 and XP-80 prototypes - which were probably already slightly less nimble than the Me-262.

And although I agree outboard mounted engines wasn't the future of the Jet fighter, it nonetheless had its benefits as it allowed the Me-262 to have tremendously strong wings able to cope with VERY high G-forces.


----------



## davparlr (Dec 25, 2006)

Soren said:


> I disagree somewhat, as the P-80 would've fallen prey to the Me-262 as-well had they ever met.



I don't agree with this and the data does not support your assertion. The P-80 had a definite speed advantage up to 25000 ft and probably to max altitude. It climbed faster and had a 7000' service ceiling advantage. These are impressive cards to hold in one's hands. I don't want to rehash another thread, but to think it would be a pushover is not supportable.



> The Me-262 incoperated so much new technology into one that although having two outboard engines was a small, and I mean SMALL disadvantage, all the new extra features more than made up for that. Besides although the P-80 featured a fuselage mounted engine it lost allot of thrust because of the lenght of the air-intake, something the Germans already knew from experiments - hence the outboard engine placements on their serviceable jets. The P-80 was also at a serious disadvantage in wing design, having alot more drag to deal with, esp. at high speeds - and the fact that the Me-262 featured full span slats for slow speed fighting and the P-80 didn't, certainly didn't help matters for the USAAF either.



It lost so much thrust and had so much drag that it was 44 mph faster at SL than the Me-262 with the same thrust! This indicates that the P-80 was a much cleaner airfrarme than the Me-262. I think parasitic drag of the two added nacelles under the wings more than made up for the thicker wings of the P-80.



> And worthy of note is also that the actual production version of the P-80 was far less nimble than YP-80 and XP-80 prototypes - which were probably already slightly less nimble than the Me-262.
> 
> And although I agree outboard mounted engines wasn't the future of the Jet fighter, it nonetheless had its benefits as it allowed the Me-262 to have tremendously strong wings able to cope with VERY high G-forces.



There are more efficient ways of strengthening wings.

In spite of the above, I never said the P-80 was superior to the Me-262. In capable hands i suspect that both aircraft would be formidiable opponents much as the Mig-15 and Sabre was. I just said that the basic layout of the P-80 was superior to the Me-262 and could be developed to a further degree, which has been proven by subsequent aircraft development.


----------



## Raf ace (Jan 10, 2007)

I think that the best ighter is P51 its speed is 703Kph


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 10, 2007)

Okay thinking that the P-51 is not a bad thing but what does 703kmh have to do with it. There were plenty of planes that were faster than 703km/h and speed is not everything when it comes to being a good fighter.

Sorry but you have a weak arguement.


----------



## Soren (Jan 10, 2007)

Davparlr,

This is from a postwar USAAF report comparing the P-80A with the Me-262: _"'Despite a difference in gross weight of nearly 2,000 lb (907 kg), the Me 262 was superior to the P-80A in acceleration, speed and approximately the same in climb performance. The Me 262 apparently has a higher critical Mach number, from a drag standpoint, than any current Army Air Force fighter.'"_


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 10, 2007)

Besides Raf ace if you want to base the best off of its speed there are plenty that are faster than 703kmh.

Arado Ar-240C-0: 730kmh
Dornier Do-335: 765kmh
Ta-152: 750kmh
Fw-190A (certian versions): 705kmh
Fw-190D-9: 710kmh
He-162: 905kmh
Bf-109K: 740kmh
Me-163: 960kmh
Me-262: 870kmh

P-38: 715kmh 
P-80 (later versions not the flown in WW2): 965kmh

Mosquito: 730kmh
Meteor Mk.9: 958kmh
Tempest: 708kmh
Hawker Fury: 760kmh
Spitfire XIV: 721kmh

Basically the point it. Speed does not determine alone what the best fighter is.


----------



## Denniss (Jan 11, 2007)

Not a single Bf 109K reached 740 km/h, K-4 with production prop reached 715 km/h.
A K-4 with an experimental prop called Dünnblattpropeller" reached 725 km/h.

740 km/h are proably calculated figures for DB605L equipped Kurfürst.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 12, 2007)

You are probably right. I was taking these figures from memory not from actually statistics.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 12, 2007)

christ i'd never be able to remember all that myself, but yes you're right and we've covered the P-51 so many times...........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 12, 2007)

Thats why I stated the speed wrong for the Bf-109K. I am sure there are others that are wrong up there.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 13, 2007)

either way the point still stands that she was far from the fastest of the war, sounds like he's just lifted the figure straight from a documentary singing the P-51's praises.............


----------



## mkloby (Jan 13, 2007)

Am I the only one that kmh means really nothing to? Even mph are almost meaningless to me, I have to convert these numbers to knots in my head to have impact


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 13, 2007)

Kmph is useless i mean they're just big numbers, Mph is where it's at.......


----------



## Soren (Jan 13, 2007)

I like km/h the best, its more precise


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 13, 2007)

it has no meaning for me though..........


----------



## Soren (Jan 13, 2007)

Which is understandable, you grew up with the imperial system - but you can learn the metric system quite easily, and when you do you'll realize its much better, trust me.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 13, 2007)

it makes science easier but that's the only advantage


----------



## mkloby (Jan 13, 2007)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> it makes science easier but that's the only advantage



With the numbers you reach in aviation, I think that knots fit very well. Km/h turn into very big numbers. God knows how hard it is to do basic calculations in your head w/ small numbers will a maniacal Navy LT in the back seat screaming at you. Kmh as A/S would make that even worse... plus small numbers are a Marine's friend. but Soren's right - it's just what you're comfortable with I guess.


----------



## pbfoot (Jan 13, 2007)

I'm bilingual in metric or imperial and american measurements but the one I tend to use is the one I was raised on which is imperial and we've been metric for 30+years


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 13, 2007)

mkloby said:


> Am I the only one that kmh means really nothing to? Even mph are almost meaningless to me, I have to convert these numbers to knots in my head to have impact



For the longest time I was the same way. We only use knots when flying. I had to get used to it.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 14, 2007)

because of the EU now controlling everything we do we have been Metric officially for a number of years, yet all our signposts are in miles and milk's still sold by the pint! _no one_ wants to give up imperial but the law is seeing to it that we have to, they're not allowed to teach anything about the imperial system at any level in schools and the current legislation means any food or drink _must_ be sold in metric units (litres, kg etc) and can also have an imperial unit price too, but in a few years that's being changed so it can only be sold in metric, but even then we'll try and get around it, milk will simply have to be sold in 586ml bottles not pints


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 14, 2007)

Honestly in the end I would rather be metric than imperial (in Aviation I would rather be in knots and so for though) because metric is much easier. Instead of 1/16, 1/8, 1/4, 1/2/, 1 you have 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.... and so forth. I find it much easier.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 14, 2007)

i find imperial far easier to estimate things in, notonly because i grew up with miles but estimating in feet and inches is easier than metres and centimeters, someone telling me their height in metres means nothing, i can't picture anything in metres, same goes for mass, 200lbs i know is large (i'm almost there myself) but what the hell's 100kg?


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 14, 2007)

220lbs  I know what you mean though, I still estimate distance in miles and height/length I do either it depends. If you can convert them between each other it isn't too bad.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 14, 2007)

i know the more common conversion factors from metric into imperial in my head but that's not much use unless you have only 1 of each metric unit 'cos i can't multiply like that in my head  it's useful for knowing that for example if you have a distance of 10k then the miles figure will be lower.......


----------



## YakFlyer (Jan 15, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I wish I could have met him. Most of all I wish I could have met Hartmann, Baer, and Boyington.



Your forgetting the other Legend, Gunther Rall. How I would like to meet this man. Other legends of note, from a personal view, are Al Deere, Keith Park and Johnny Johnson. 

Some interesting posts, have read about 1/100000th of them but anyway. I don't see how people could replace the P-51 with the P-47. It wasn't half as manoevreable for starters. 

For those who aren't sure on Russian aircraft, personally, I'd have said the Yak 3/9 was the finest 'dogfighter' that actually saw combat. It can be summed up by the Germans, forget anyone else's opinions. They were the ones that issued direct instructions to Fw190 and Me109 pilots to not engage them wherever possible, in particular, below 20,000ft. 
They were lighter, smaller, and faster, with heavy fire power. Can one sum up the fighter stakes better? I am sure there were better designs, perhaps the Mk 24 Spitfire may have pushed the boundaries still further had it seen combat, or the Lavochkin La 9 surely could have been in a league all of it's own had it been ready in time? The Sea Fury? The Corsair, saw very little service in Europe, but how would it have matched up to a Fw190 at the same altitude and speed? 
The Mustang had the speed, fire power, and range, but it wasn't as agile as the Spitfire, Fw190 or Yak 3. 

By all means correct me if I am indeed wrong at any point.
Regards,
Andrew


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 15, 2007)

While the P-51 was more maneuverable than the P-47. The P-51 was not th greatest thing since bread and butter. Was it a great plane? Absolutely yes, one of the best ever built. But what really was the only thing that it had in advantage over other aircraft. Its range. There were other American, British, and German aircraft were faster and more manueverable. 

Once the P-51 got over the target, you can take its range out of the equation because now it is just fighter vs. fighter over Germany and the P-51 no longer has to get to the target, it is there. 

Why did the P-51 do so well in my honest opinion, because of its large number. It had numerical superiority. 5 Bf-109G's or Fw-190A's getting jumped by 25 to 30 P-51s is a pretty one sided fight.

The P-51s lay to fame was that it had the range to take the fight to the enemy. Take that away and it was no differnent than any other fighter over the skies of Europe.

The reason that I like the P-47 over the P-51 is because of its ruggedness. It was also better adapted to the close air support role than the P-51.


----------



## mkloby (Jan 15, 2007)

They were EXCELLENT compliments to each other... some focus on individual stats which make an A/C sexy, forgetting that aircraft are not built to be sexy, they're built for specific purpose, to fill roles, and ultimately to win wars.


----------



## davparlr (Jan 15, 2007)

Soren said:


> Davparlr,
> 
> This is from a postwar USAAF report comparing the P-80A with the Me-262: _"'Despite a difference in gross weight of nearly 2,000 lb (907 kg), the Me 262 was superior to the P-80A in acceleration, speed and approximately the same in climb performance._


_ The Me 262 apparently has a higher critical Mach number, from a drag standpoint, than any current Army Air Force fighter.'"_[/QUOTE]

Is this a quote from the mystical flight test report that no one seems to have? I'm not really going to accept this information withou being able to review it. No other reports support this conclusion. I have no flight test data on the P-80 or Me 262, so all we have is what has been reported.



> The Me 262 apparently has a higher critical Mach number, from a drag standpoint, than any current Army Air Force fighter.'"[/i]



What exactly is "higher critical Mach number, from a drag stand point"? This makes no sense to me, maybe you can explain it. I know that critical Mach number is where airflow somewhere exceeds Mach 1 and things go fishy. This is a factor of the disruption of the airflow about the aircraft. I don't know where drag has anything to do with that. I can see that the Me 262 could have a higher critical Mach number and still be slower in level flight or be slower with equal thrust than another aircraft, like the P-80. A large aircraft can have a higher critical Mach number, and a higher coefficient of drag, than a small aircraft, but still be slower than a the smaller aircraft with the same engine in level flight, as long as neither approach critical Mach. Now, in a dive this could change. I don't have a issue with the Me 262 with critical Mach. With its slightly swept back wings, and thinner wings, as you have said, this is not unreasonable. I don't think that makes a significant statement about performance except, maybe, dive performance.

I would not doubt that if that report does exist, it was used to encourage the spending money to develop more advanced aircraft, like the F-86. It just doesn't add up to all the other data we have on the P-80 and Me 262.


----------



## Soren (Jan 16, 2007)

Davparlr,

A higher critical mach number from a drag standpoint means the Me-262 is a cleaner aircraft - the swept wings give it a higher critical mach number as-well as lowers the drag. When you sweep the wings you effectively decrease the thickness ratio of the wing to the incoming air, which means less drag and a higher critical mach number.

And I believe the report is authentic, infact I'm quite sure of it as the early P-80A's weren't that fast, struggling to reach 792 km/h in level flight. And the later P-80's which reached 558 mph at SL, only reached 492 mph at 20,000 ft compared to the Me-262's 544 mph at the same altitude. 

And the higher we go the larger the Me-262's advantage will be, as the axial flow Jumo engines were build to perform better as altitude and speed increased - they weren't configured for optimum performance at low alt like the P-80's centrifugal flow engine.


----------



## davparlr (Jan 16, 2007)

Soren said:


> Davparlr,
> 
> A higher critical mach number from a drag standpoint means the Me-262 is a cleaner aircraft - the swept wings give it a higher critical mach number as-well as lowers the drag. When you sweep the wings you effectively decrease the thickness ratio of the wing to the incoming air, which means less drag and a higher critical mach number.



Critical Mach number comes into play only at transonic speeds, which neither aircraft got near in level flight. In a dive, yes. The max airspeed at highest q, SL, shows the P-80A at 558 mph (according to everybody, including your comment), the Me 262 was only capable of 511 to 514 mph (according to NASA.gov and Russian flight test results), some 44 mph slower. This with engines that generated an equivalent static thrust. If these numbers are correct, the Me 262 cannot have a less total drag, therefore cannot be cleaner, than the P-80 in non-transonic flight.



> And I believe the report is authentic, infact I'm quite sure of it as the early P-80A's weren't that fast, struggling to reach 792 km/h in level flight. And the later P-80's which reached 558 mph at SL, only reached 492 mph at 20,000 ft compared to the Me-262's 544 mph at the same altitude.



Well, I found where the quote came from, at least, a book. I couldn't find an airspeed for the P-80 at 20,000 ft. so I can't argue. 



> And the higher we go the larger the Me-262's advantage will be, as the axial flow Jumo engines were build to perform better as altitude and speed increased - they weren't configured for optimum performance at low alt like the P-80's centrifugal flow engine.



I did find that at 30,000 ft, the P-80A did 508 mph (all references) and the Me 262 did 506 at 33,000 ft. (Russian flight test), which tends to confirm your statement, except that that the performance improvement just made the Me 262 basically equivalent to the P-80 in speed. However, all sources say the P-80 had a 7500' ft service ceiling over the Me 262 so at 33000, they were roughly equal in speed but the P-80 certainly had a significant climb advantage, and probably in turn performance. This also makes suspect the statement that the P-80 only did 492 mph at 20000 ft., which is, oddly the same speed it will do at 40000 ft. Chuck Yeager, for what it was worth, who flew both, said they were roughly equal.

I was fustrated in trying to find good data on both these planes, especially the P-80, which, you would suspect, would have a lot.

I don't think you have a lot of justification that the Me 262 was clearly superior.


----------



## Soren (Jan 17, 2007)

davparlr said:


> Critical Mach number comes into play only at transonic speeds, which neither aircraft got near in level flight. In a dive, yes. The max airspeed at highest q, SL, shows the P-80A at 558 mph (according to everybody, including your comment), the Me 262 was only capable of 511 to 514 mph (according to NASA.gov and Russian flight test results), some 44 mph slower. This with engines that generated an equivalent static thrust. If these numbers are correct, the Me 262 cannot have a less total drag, therefore cannot be cleaner, than the P-80 in non-transonic flight.



I agree completely here, however in a fight diving is most definitely going to occure, and the Me-262 was cleared for 1,000 km/h, beyond that and you could lose control, but there are accounts where the Me-262 apparently broke the sound barrier in a dive. 



> I did find that at 30,000 ft, the P-80A did 508 mph (all references) and the Me 262 did 506 at 33,000 ft. (Russian flight test), which tends to confirm your statement, except that that the performance improvement just made the Me 262 basically equivalent to the P-80 in speed. However, all sources say the P-80 had a 7500' ft service ceiling over the Me 262 so at 33000, they were roughly equal in speed but the P-80 certainly had a significant climb advantage, and probably in turn performance. This also makes suspect the statement that the P-80 only did 492 mph at 20000 ft., which is, oddly the same speed it will do at 40000 ft. Chuck Yeager, for what it was worth, who flew both, said they were roughly equal.



Lets not forget that the Me-262 had serious issues with its engines, something which might explain the lower ceiling and speed results - the pilots flying the thing weren't exactly happy to apply full throttle, the engines were just too ahead of their time. I don't think the true maximum speed of the a/c was ever recorded as the engines simply couldn't run full throttle for the needed amount of time.

And now just because the Me-262 has a lower ceiling doesn't mean its a worse turn fighter, cause slats don't help increase max ceiling, they just help maneuvering the aircraft close to stall and improve turn performance. Looking at the specs its quite clear that the Me-262 has an advantage in turn performance, and if at full throttle also in acceleration.



> I don't think you have a lot of justification that the Me 262 was clearly superior.



It would be clearly superior if they ever met, cause like I said, the early P-80A's had a hard time even reaching 792 km/h, and this problem was first resolved a good time after WWII. If the later P-80A and Me-262 should have ever met it would've been in 1946, and if the war had went on for that long by that time the Me-262 would've been equipped with more powerful engines.


----------



## davparlr (Jan 17, 2007)

Soren said:


> I agree completely here, however in a fight diving is most definitely going to occure, and the Me-262 was cleared for 1,000 km/h, beyond that and you could lose control, but there are accounts where the Me-262 apparently broke the sound barrier in a dive.



No problem with the dive performance and its importance in a dog fight. As for going supersonic, not likely, even the Mig 15 would not break the sound barrier going straight down. Without proper instrumentation, pilots often claim incorrect conclusions.




> And now just because the Me-262 has a lower ceiling doesn't mean its a worse turn fighter, cause slats don't help increase max ceiling, they just help maneuvering the aircraft close to stall and improve turn performance. Looking at the specs its quite clear that the Me-262 has an advantage in turn performance, and if at full throttle also in acceleration.



I think this is true, however, at say, 33000, manuevering at 4500' below your ceiling has got to be more touchy that being 17000' below. And in this instance, the P-80 would certainly have advantage in vertical plane. Also, with a higher ceiling, the P-80 could look down and enjoy engaging when it wanted with high energy level, a significant advantage. In acceleration, you are probably right at high altitude, but not at low altitude.





> It would be clearly superior if they ever met, cause like I said, the early P-80A's had a hard time even reaching 792 km/h, and this problem was first resolved a good time after WWII. If the later P-80A and Me-262 should have ever met it would've been in 1946, and if the war had went on for that long by that time the Me-262 would've been equipped with more powerful engines.



Didn't the Me 262 also have engine problems,


> Lets not forget that the Me-262 had serious issues with its engines, something which might explain the lower ceiling and speed results"


? More powerful engines would have been available on both sides as time progressed. I don't think the Me 262 would have ever been a significant advantage over allied fighters. They were all roughly on a parity. However, the next generation German jet fighters would have sent the Allied engineers back to the drawing board in panic!


----------



## Soren (Jan 17, 2007)

I almost fully agree with you, however, even at low alt the later P-80A would probably be at a disadvantage in acceleration compared to the Me-262, but this is assuming both a/c are running at full throttle - something which was very risky for the Me-262 pilot as the axial flow Jumo engines could reach incredibly high temperatures if run too long at this setting, temperatures higher than the metals at the time could handle. - Like I said I don't think the true maximum speed of the Me-262 was ever recorded as the engines simply couldn't run full throttle for the needed amount of time.

As to the 1946 scenario, well by that time the Me-262 would've had different and more powerful engines while the P-80A had nearly just gotten its fixed. 

And about the accounts suggesting the Me-262 broke the soundbarrier, well I agree speed indicators at the time were not accurate those speeds, besides the Me-262 was going to need alot more power to do this, and even then its not certain the airframe could take it - no doubt it came close though, but atleast another 100 - 150 km/h was needed.


----------



## str8jax (Jan 18, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> What I am getting at is, I dont think the Lanc could have done it with only 1 engine. The 17 was known to have flown on occasion with half of its loaded weight on only 1 engine. Naturally it would drop its weight to get back home but the 17 could do it.



What was the B17 full load weight Vs the Lancaster? Full fuel,bombload, crew etc?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 18, 2007)

I will have to look it up tomorrow but the Lancaster had a higher max take off weight and a larger bomb load than the B-17.


----------



## str8jax (Jan 18, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I will have to look it up tomorrow but the Lancaster had a higher max take off weight and a larger bomb load than the B-17.



The reason I was asking is if a lancaster with 14000 lbs of bombs actually weighs more than a b-17 with 6000 lbs of bombs? GVW The 2 engine argument you know..


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 20, 2007)

this's what i've got on it

B-17G
Empty weight- 36,135lbs
MTOW- 65,500lbs

Lancaster Mk.I (in know these off by heart now  )
Empty- 36,900lbs
MTOW 70,000lbs

but it looks like you're asking with regards to flight with engines out? for a start if a pilot lost any more than one engine he would jettison his payload (there are many stories of pilots having carried on to the target on 3 engines) but what you also need to look at is power, which is very telling RE engine out performance-

B-17G
4x R-1820 at 1,200hp each- total 4,800hp 
power/MOTW ratio- 0.073hp/lb (these figures don't mean a great deal they're just for comparison)

Lancaster Mk.I
4x RR Merlin 24s at 1,640hp each- total 6,560hp
power/MTOW ratio- 0.094hp/lb
power on 3 engines- 4,920hp

so as you can see the lanc has considderably more power than the B-17, a lanc on 3 engines has more power than a B-17 on four for roughly similar weights- hence the greater engine out performance............


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 20, 2007)

Good info there.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 21, 2007)

i think it's quite telling so as a service to the site, out of the goodness of my heart i feel like doing it for more bombers!

B-24H/J
4x R-1830 at 1,200hp each- total 4,800hp
Empty weight- 36,500lbs 
Maximum overload TOW- 71,200lbs (i can't find the standard MTOW)
power/overload TOW ratio- 0.067hp/lb

B-29 (these aren't from the world's most reliable source however)
4x R-3350 at 2,200hp each (when you could get them working  ) total- 8,800hp
Empty weight- 74,500lbs
MTOW- 135,000lbs
power/MTOW ratio- 0.065hp/lb

HP Halifax Mk.III
4x Hercules XVI at 1,615hp each- total 6,460hp
Empty weight- 38,240lbs
MTOW- 65,000lbs
power/MTOW ratio- 0.099

Stirling Mk.III
4x Hercules XVI at 1,650hp each (different production run to the HP's) total- 6,600hp
empty weight- 43,200lbs
MTOW- 70,000lbs 
power/MTOW ratio- 0.094

so for the 6 major heavies of the war it's the general trend that the British bombers have more power at hand for roughly similar weights, suggestive of better engine out performance but obviously you'd still have to look into power loadings etc to get a better idea..........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 21, 2007)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> B-29 (these aren't from the world's most reliable source however)
> 4x R-3350 at 2,200hp each (when you could get them working  ) total- 8,800hp
> Empty weight- 74,500lbs
> MTOW- 135,000lbs
> power/MTOW ratio- 0.065hp/lb



As for the (when you can get them working) part, it was not as bad as you make them sound....

B-29 hands down was better than anything produced in WW2 and saw major service....


----------



## renrich (Jan 21, 2007)

New to this forum but with regard to the discussion about best ww2 piston engined fighter, consider this. In Europe the P47 flew 423,435 combat sorties for 3077 losses. The P51 flew 213,873 combat sorties for 2520 losses. The two leading American aces flew P47s.


----------



## renrich (Jan 21, 2007)

Again regarding the best ww2 piston engine fighter. It is not very productive to compare spitfires, 109s, 190s, 51s or 47s unless you talk about specific models. The mark 14 spitfire was a different animal than the mark 5. How would the battle of Britain turned out if the Germans had been equipped with the A6M instead of the 109?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 21, 2007)

Well if you read through all the posts and through all the different threads you will see that we compare them by different marks and not just generic Bf-109 vs. Spitfire. Please read them all...

As for the Bf-109 vs. the Zero in the battle of Britain I dont think it would have changed a thing. Granted the Zero had better range but the 109 has it hands down in ruggedness and I would say more manueverable at lower speeds.


----------



## renrich (Jan 21, 2007)

The A6M had more than twice the range of the 109 and there was no modern fighter in ww2 that had the slow speed maneuver capabilities of the Zero. Having more than an hour to spend in the air over Britain instead of 15 or 20 minutes would have had a huge impact on the battle. The British Battle of Britain veterans in spitfires flying out of Darwin in 1942 tried to dogfight the A6M and paid heavily for that mistake. It is my understanding that neither the British or German fighters in 1940 had self sealing tanks so the 109 would have had no advantage in ruggedness and in fact with the air cooled engine the Zero would have had an advantage.


----------



## renrich (Jan 21, 2007)

wmaxt, I am a new member and just read your post of December, 2004. Hope you are still on board. I had seen the numbers on sorties versus losses of US fighters in Europe, wrote them down and now don't know where I found them. I f you read this please enlighten me as to where I can access them. Thanks


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 21, 2007)

renrich said:


> no modern fighter in ww2 that had the slow speed maneuver capabilities of the Zero.



Excuse me, you are correct, I got that backwards.



renrich said:


> Having more than an hour to spend in the air over Britain instead of 15 or 20 minutes would have had a huge impact on the battle. The British Battle of Britain veterans in spitfires flying out of Darwin in 1942 tried to dogfight the A6M and paid heavily for that mistake. It is my understanding that neither the British or German fighters in 1940 had self sealing tanks so the 109 would have had no advantage in ruggedness and in fact with the air cooled engine the Zero would have had an advantage.



While you are correct that the range would have been a huge advantage, however the 109 had better armament and better protection for the crew and had fuel injection, giving it an advantage over the Spit.

I really dont think the Zero would have been an advantage over the 109. Besides the Fw-190 was allready on its way (not in time for the BoB ofcourse) and it was handsdown superior to the Zero.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 21, 2007)

renrich said:


> The A6M had more than twice the range of the 109 and there was no modern fighter in ww2 that had the slow speed maneuver capabilities of the Zero. Having more than an hour to spend in the air over Britain instead of 15 or 20 minutes would have had a huge impact on the battle. The British Battle of Britain veterans in spitfires flying out of Darwin in 1942 tried to dogfight the A6M and paid heavily for that mistake. It is my understanding that neither the British or German fighters in 1940 had self sealing tanks so the 109 would have had no advantage in ruggedness and in fact with the air cooled engine the Zero would have had an advantage.


Those BoB vets you speak of tried to fight the Zero on it's terms - dogfighting under 300 mph. Above 300 mph the Zero lost most if not all its mystical maneuvering ability - it's controls got stiff and did not have the speed to out dive most allied aircraft.


----------



## renrich (Jan 21, 2007)

To add to the discussion on ww2 fighters the best source of performance figures on US fighters I have found is AMERICAS HUNDRED THOUSAND by Francis Dean. His figures for the highest speed for a P38J/L is 420mph @ 26,000feet with combat power. For a good dissertation by a combat experienced pilot on ww2 fighters, read pages 66-69 in EIGHTY KNOTS TO MACH 2 by Richard Linnekin.


----------



## renrich (Jan 21, 2007)

Thank youall for your replies. In 1940 the A6M had two 7.7 MGs in the nose and two 20mm in the wings which I believe was equal to the 109. Of course it had no armor and control forces above 300 mph were too high. However my point is that in 1940 the Zero was probably the equal of any fighter in the world and with it's long range, at least twice any other operational fighter of that time, it was formidable. Actually, in 1940, the F4F-3 was a better performer than the Hurricane and in some ways was better even than the 109 or the spitfire.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 21, 2007)

renrich said:


> Thank youall for your replies. In 1940 the A6M had two 7.7 MGs in the nose and two 20mm in the wings which I believe was equal to the 109. Of course it had no armor and control forces above 300 mph were too high. However my point is that in 1940 the Zero was probably the equal of any fighter in the world and with it's long range, at least twice any other operational fighter of that time, it was formidable. Actually, in 1940, the F4F-3 was a better performer than the Hurricane and in some ways was better even than the 109 or the spitfire.


Correct - but in 1940 there was little known about the Zero or any other Japanese aircraft. The only country who had any experience fighting the Japanese with modern equipment was the Soviet Union.


----------



## renrich (Jan 21, 2007)

The Fw190 was a fine ww2 fighter and it seems that many members here pick the Fw 190D-9 as the best of the war. From a performance point of view I show the D-9 as making 426 mph at 21,650 ft with a time to climb to 19,685 ft of 7 min 6 sec with combat power and a range on internal fuel of 520 miles. The F4U-4 could make 446 mph at 26,200 ft, it's service ceiling was 41, 500 ft, it's rate of climb was 3870 fpm, and it had a range on internal fuel of 1005 miles. It had a better roll rate than the Mustang, was practically unbreakable, had an air cooled engine, (couldn't be brought down by a single round like the liquid cooled engined fighters) and in a pinch could carry a 4000 pound bomb load. It had excellent short field takeoff and landing characteristics. Sounds like a winner to me.


----------



## renrich (Jan 21, 2007)

In 1940 Chennault knew about the A6M and fighting them with the Chinese and assorted other nationalities.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 21, 2007)

renrich said:


> In 1940 Chennault knew about the A6M and fighting them with the Chinese and assorted other nationalities.


The A6M2 was the first Zero model to see combat and that was in August of 1940. Few knew little of this aircraft. Chennault probably had knowledge of this aircraft as well as the Oscar (which was more maneuverable than the Zero) but no one with the exception of the Russians fought her in combat with modern equipment. Untill the start of WW2.


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Jan 21, 2007)

renrich said:


> The A6M had more than twice the range of the 109 and there was no modern fighter in ww2 that had the slow speed maneuver capabilities of the Zero. Having more than an hour to spend in the air over Britain instead of 15 or 20 minutes would have had a huge impact on the battle. The British Battle of Britain veterans in spitfires flying out of Darwin in 1942 tried to dogfight the A6M and paid heavily for that mistake. It is my understanding that neither the British or German fighters in 1940 had self sealing tanks so the 109 would have had no advantage in ruggedness and in fact with the air cooled engine the Zero would have had an advantage.



It's kind of irrelevant since the Zero was not in production in time for the Battle of Britain. A preproduction batch saw service in China in September 1940.
People lose sight of the fact the the three best fighters in actual service in June 1940 were the 109, the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Trade the Luftwaffe or the RAF aircraft for any other airforce's front line fighters at that time the result would be a disaster.


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Jan 21, 2007)

renrich said:


> New to this forum but with regard to the discussion about best ww2 piston engined fighter, consider this. In Europe the P47 flew 423,435 combat sorties for 3077 losses. The P51 flew 213,873 combat sorties for 2520 losses. The two leading American aces flew P47s.



The two leading aces in Europe did fly the P-47, but there were only 79 P-47 aces vs 258 P-51 aces. The total enemy aircraft claims in Europe were 4950 for the P-51 vs 3082 for the P-47 and as you pointed out, the P-51 did it in far fewer sorties.


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Jan 21, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> While the P-51 was more maneuverable than the P-47. The P-51 was not th greatest thing since bread and butter. Was it a great plane? Absolutely yes, one of the best ever built. But what really was the only thing that it had in advantage over other aircraft. Its range. There were other American, British, and German aircraft were faster and more manueverable.
> 
> Once the P-51 got over the target, you can take its range out of the equation because now it is just fighter vs. fighter over Germany and the P-51 no longer has to get to the target, it is there.
> 
> ...



You can't take range out of the equation because without it there is no fight.

The numerical superiority arguement doesn't hold up to close scrutiny. In the big air battles over Berlin in March 1944 the AAF could put up between 100 and 200 P-51's. The Luftwaffe certianly had more fighters than that. The P-51's also had to spread out along the path of the bombers.


----------



## Chingachgook (Jan 21, 2007)

X


----------



## Sgt. Pappy (Jan 21, 2007)

Reluctant Poster said:


> You can't take range out of the equation because without it there is no fight.



Depending on what you're talking about, however, range can be taken out of the equation to a certain extent. 

The Spitfire LF/F.Mk.IX was believed to one of the best fighters of WWII and it had a less-than-generous range. Obviously, without thinking of range, you can't get to the enemy, but though the P-51 (for example) had a lot more range, that range didn't help it dodge and loop and roll and fight e/a.

If a Spitfire were to duel a P-51, range would not be regarded as it is not a fighter's performance quility; i.e. a PBY-5 has a long range but it's not ganna out-fight a Frank. 

In terms of strict dogfighting/dueling, the a/c with highest amount of 'combat abilities' (i.e. turning both instant and sustained, climb, dive E-retention etc.) would come out on top.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Jan 22, 2007)

renrich said:


> The A6M had more than twice the range of the 109 and there was no modern fighter in ww2 that had the slow speed maneuver capabilities of the Zero. Having more than an hour to spend in the air over Britain instead of 15 or 20 minutes would have had a huge impact on the battle. The British Battle of Britain veterans in spitfires flying out of Darwin in 1942 tried to dogfight the A6M and paid heavily for that mistake. It is my understanding that neither the British or German fighters in 1940 had self sealing tanks so the 109 would have had no advantage in ruggedness and in fact with the air cooled engine the Zero would have had an advantage.



The Ki-43 was significantly more agile than the Zero at slow speeds, and kept that agility better through the speed range because of a better alieron design.

The Spitfire had a self sealing lower tank, but the upper tank wasn't, due to space reasons (rectified on the Mk V).

The 109E-3s/E-4s had better pilot armour and selfsealing tanks than the Zero. 

They were also 

Faster, particularly above 15,000 feet;
More reliable (the early Zeros Sakae 12 was very tempremental until modified after combat trials in July-August, 1940);
Had better top speed and dive speed;
More controllable at high speed;
Better armed (MG-FFM);
Better equipped (superior radios and cockpit equipment).

While an hour of loiter time over London would of been fatastic, the highest loss rates experiance by the LuftWaffe were not over England itself, but over the English Channel, 50-100 miles closer to France than London. Strangely enough, where they had as much, or more, endurance than their RAF counterparts in Spitfires and Hurricanes.

If I wanted to survive over the UK in 1940, i'd want to be in a 109E rather than a A6M2.


----------



## renrich (Jan 22, 2007)

Enjoyed your reply. Many points well taken. The question is whether the Hes and Dos survived to do the bombing.


----------



## renrich (Jan 22, 2007)

The F4F-3 was operational with the US Navy in April, 1940. In fact, by October 31, 1940 the Royal Navy had taken delivery of 81 Martlets. The F4F-3 was superior to the Hurricane in most respects.


----------



## renrich (Jan 22, 2007)

The significance of the comparison between the P47 and P51 sorties versus losses was that the P47 was almost twice as likely to come back from a sortie as a P51. The P47 was operational with the 8th air force in April, 1943. The P51B did not become operational out of Britain until December, 1943. It would follow that when Gabreski and Johnson were running up their totals, they were flying against an enemy that was both quantitatively and qualitatively superior to what the P51 pilots faced seven months later. The P51 victories relatively speaking were achieved against Luftwaffe pilots in many cases who were inexperienced and outnumbered. By the late stages of the war the German fighters were modified with heavier weapons that took away some of their ACM capabilities. Many of the P47 squadrons were changed to Mustangs for the escort role while the P47 itself was used more extensively for air to mud missions which were inherently more dangerous than escort missions especially late in the war. Notwithstanding all those factors the Jug was almost twice as likely to come back as the Mustang. Seems clear to me that the sole advantage ( and a huge one) that the P51 had over the P47 was longer legs.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 22, 2007)

renrich said:


> had an air cooled engine, (couldn't be brought down by a single round like the liquid cooled engined fighters)



You sure about that. Ive flown on combat missions and I have seen aircraft go down by a single 7.62mm round. Granted they were not WW2 aircraft, but what I am saying is....one well placed round is all it takes.


----------



## Udet (Jan 22, 2007)

Reluctant poster:

There were quite a few times during the whole year of 1944 when German fighter pilots had the opportunity to engage P-51s or P-47s in situations where the allied guys did not enjoy a numerical superiority having thus a more balanced match in terms of planes joining the fight...most of such times the Germans taught them real tough lessons, either wiping out the USAAF flight or giving them a battering with minimum or no losses from the German part. More importantly, many of such times the German fliers were mainly rookies..."ill-trained" as depicted on most accounts.

Of course such kind of enagements were not too common as most times the German boys found themselves overwhelmed by sheer numbers of enemy planes, and even then most of the times the big majority of the German fliers managed to escape and return to base even after having their fighter units enduring very high losses.

So the generally accepted allied tale of "German pilots that were ill-trained and barely capable of flying" for the 1944 period seems quite unaccurate.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 22, 2007)

Reluctant Poster said:


> You can't take range out of the equation because without it there is no fight.



No in the instance that I am talking yes you can. Once the P-51D was at its patrol area over Germany it no longer had the 6 hours of flight time (or however long it was), because it had to get back to England. So during that time the Luftwaffe fighters were more on par with the time they could spend in the air. We are not talking about 1943 here or anything. 

Understand what I am saying. Sure range is a great thing but lets say an aircraft has 2000mi range and it takes 600mi to get to its loiter spot and 600mi to get back. That leaves 800mi left that it can spend to fly around and search for enemy fighters. A Luftwaffe fighter with 800mi range (not talking about Bf-109 here but any fighter) can now stay in the air for the same amount of time.

Now it is just aircraft vs. aircraft and pilot vs. pilot.



Reluctant Poster said:


> The numerical superiority arguement doesn't hold up to close scrutiny. In the big air battles over Berlin in March 1944 the AAF could put up between 100 and 200 P-51's. The Luftwaffe certianly had more fighters than that. The P-51's also had to spread out along the path of the bombers.



Oh it holds up very very well actually. At the hight of the P-51s time in the ETO the Luftwaffe never was able to up superior numbers of fighters to combat the P-51s. They rarely were able to up 100 to 200 fighters in the air at the same time in one location.

The one time they were able to and it is considered the last ditch effort of the Luftwaffe was Operation Bodenplatte which was launched on 1 January 1945. On this operation which had no effect on the war the Luftwaffe was able to muster about 1000 aircraft (and I am not sure on this actual amount)

The allies lost 405 aircraft during Operation Bodenplatte. The Luftwaffe lost 304 aircraft (most of them to AA guns and many to there own AA guns because the German AA gunners did not know about the mission and fired on anything that flew.)

As you see allied numerical superiority is what won the skies over Europe.


----------



## Chingachgook (Jan 22, 2007)

X


----------



## Udet (Jan 22, 2007)

But also the Luftwaffe guys shot down a large number of TAF/USAAF fighters that made it to the air...again shattering the classical allied night tale of a Luftwaffe comprised mainly of "ill-trained naive young boys" by that period of the war.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 22, 2007)

Chingachgook said:


> Bodenplatte - most of the allied losses were on the gound, but a few Mustangs and Spits got airborn and then got even. One Spit pilot did quite well.



62 German fighters were lost in Air to Air Combat to Allied fighters. 70 Allied aircraft were shot down. You see with closer numerical numbers the Luftwaffe did not fair to bad against Allied Aircraft. 

88 German fighters were lost to Allied ground fire and 84 were lost to German ground fire.


----------



## Udet (Jan 22, 2007)

Adler, correct.

It´s been quite some time since i learned how incorrect the views on aerieal warfare in the ETO for 1944 are.

No one will deny German fliers suffered tremendous casualties during said year, and likewise prohibitive losses during 1945, but they want to make it look as if the ETO had been about indentical to the PTO in terms of aerial combat.

I will always say that if a thing such a "Great Marianas Turkey Shot" took place in the Pacific, when countless Japanese combat planes were shot down apparently with utmost easiness by US forces -an minimum losses from the US part if any- it will not mean anything similar came close to happen against the Luftwaffe.

~80 TAF/USAAF fighter planes shot down in a few hours of fierce air combat... Can anyone tell if the Japs were capable of achieving something that could resemble such a thing during the entire year of 1944? By the time "Bodenplatte" was launched the Japs had already gained several months of practice in terms of sending thousands of pilots to carry on with suicidal attacks.

This might help clearing the atmosphere for some, a force comprised mainly of the kind of pilots allied mythology describes, will not achieve such a thing, even if the end the operation turned out a failure and even if losses were high.

I continue to gather more information regarding the alleged "hastily ill-trained", "naive", "stupid", "misleaded", "barely capable of flying, much less to navigate" young boys of the Luftwaffe sent en mass to face an unavoidable death at the hands of the superb allied western air forces during the last 18 months of the war in Europe.

Also i continue to gather information on names, and possibly lists of Luftwaffe flight instructors, that in accordance with the allied fairy tale, "got all sent out to first line units to fly combat missions leaving flying schools without proper instructors contributing thus to the ever poorer quality of new fighter pilots." Already have the names of many who remained as fly instructors to the very last day of the war and never served in combat units.

The casualty free meless against the Luftwaffe during 1944 will become what they are: junk.

It has also become customary to say "the allies could replace their losses with ease, while the Germans could not". Sounds nice and comfortable, even reasonable as argument. But i am not sure on the whole extent of the phrase.

If on one day the Germans lost say 60 fighters shot down in combat -high losses- but in the process they managed to destroy 40 heavy bombers and 21fighters the USAAF lost 421 men...a 7 to 1 exchange ratio...and as i also have said elsewhere in the forum, the USA is a country that has always had issues at enduring heavy losses...

A pilot must commence its career as such at one point; that many German pilots got shot down after flying a mere fistful of missions is correct, but would that mean they were "ill-trained"?

Do you have any numbers for how many USAAF pilots flying the overhyped P-51 got shot down and killed after a having flown say no more than 5 combat missions? I bet no one does, because it should not be known but you bet many US guys ended their days frying in their cockpits and had not fly more than many German pilots who died during 1944.

None of the German fighters could be described as "outclassed" by any of its allied contemporary foes. The G-5/G-6/G-14/AS, G-10, K-4 of the Bf 109 Fw 190 of the late Antons and D-9s could more than handle any of their foes.

Also i have studied the accounts of JG 1 and JG 11, two units which used the G-6/R6 of the Bf 109 in large numbers to improve their fire delivery against heavy bombers...and it is easy to detect the G-6/R6, certainly heavier than a none R6 could find their way through the swarms of Mustangs, shoot some of those down and even return to base.

I can not say what was the very best fighter of the war...but my vote goes for the P-47 D and Fw 190 A-8 and Fw 190 D-9.


----------



## Chingachgook (Jan 22, 2007)

X


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 22, 2007)

Chingachgook said:


> You need to consider also that the allied aircraft were at a huge disadvantage. They did not have alt, they had to climb to fight, with LW aircraft that were B&Z'ing them. This is the worst tactical situation. To have K.O.'d 62 agaist those odds does not look good for LW.
> One patrol of Spits was already up, and they laid waste to the German fighters that they found working over their base with no a2a losses for the airborne Spits. I will look up the details.



These battles were not fought at high alltitudes.


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Jan 22, 2007)

renrich said:


> The F4F-3 was operational with the US Navy in April, 1940. In fact, by October 31, 1940 the Royal Navy had taken delivery of 81 Martlets. The F4F-3 was superior to the Hurricane in most respects.



THe RN received the F4F before the USN. The F4F-3 entered service with VF-41 on December 4, 1940, not in April. The USN had the grand total of 22 on hand. Like the other aircraft mentioned , the Zero and the Ki-43, the F4F was not in production in time for the Battle of Britain.


----------



## Chingachgook (Jan 22, 2007)

X


----------



## Udet (Jan 22, 2007)

One of my sisters...why do you ask?


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Jan 22, 2007)

renrich said:


> TIt would follow that when Gabreski and Johnson were running up their totals, they were flying against an enemy that was both quantitatively and qualitatively superior to what the P51 pilots faced seven months later. The P51 victories relatively speaking were achieved against Luftwaffe pilots in many cases who were inexperienced and outnumbered.



Interesting theory, but with a major flaw in that both Gabreski and Johnson claimed the majority of their victories in 1944. Gabreski had 7 claims at the beginning of December 1943 and got one more in December. The top scorer at the beginning of December was Bud Mahurin with 11.5. The truth is that the 8th Air Force fighters didn't accomplish much of anything in 1943 until the last two months. Out of 3,082 claims by P-47's a little over 400 were in 1943. (claims, not actual German losses}


----------



## philtunes (Jan 23, 2007)

I'm a P-51 fan myself.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 23, 2007)

Chingachgook said:


> Alright then, lets just get to the important question here, who is the babe on Udets' avatar?
> 
> dang.


----------



## Chingachgook (Jan 23, 2007)

X


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 23, 2007)

and how'd you figure the F4F is was better than the Hurricane in 1940? same top speed, hurricane has higher ceiling, greater rate of climb, the F4F has guns for which there would be no ammo in 1940, an engine no one knows how to fix and the undercarriage was very short and stubby, not conducive to use on grass airfeilds, the only area the F4F really beats the Hurricane is range........


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 23, 2007)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> the only area the F4F really beats the Hurricane is range........


And landing on a carrier...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 23, 2007)

yes just what the RAF were looking for in 1940  and she proved she could do it later on...........


----------



## Marcel (Jan 23, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> And landing on a carrier...



And training the muscles in your arm, as the gear was manual retracted with a bicycle chain


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 23, 2007)

the British have ruggers, cricket and shooting for that


----------



## Udet (Jan 23, 2007)

Chinggy: no problem. 8) 

I changed my avatar so you dont sweat there in front of your screens.


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Jan 23, 2007)

Udet said:


> Reluctant poster:
> 
> There were quite a few times during the whole year of 1944 when German fighter pilots had the opportunity to engage P-51s or P-47s in situations where the allied guys did not enjoy a numerical superiority having thus a more balanced match in terms of planes joining the fight...most of such times the Germans taught them real tough lessons, either wiping out the USAAF flight or giving them a battering with minimum or no losses from the German part. More importantly, many of such times the German fliers were mainly rookies..."ill-trained" as depicted on most accounts.
> 
> ...



I’m not making the claim that the American planes and pilots were vastly superior to the Germans. I have no opinion on that subject. As many people have stated elsewhere, the AAF Bomber offensive was a battle of attrition that the US was bound to win. God is on the side of the bigger battalions. My problem is that people don’t really understand the chronology of the air war, that there is a myth being perpetuated that the P-51 suddenly appeared in vast quantities to clean up after the P-47 and P-38 did all the heavy lifting. What people fail to realize is that there was no significant bombing effort against Germany until “Big Week” in February 1944. The total tonnage of bombs dropped on Germany in 1943 was 1/10 of the tonnage dropped in 1944. The vast majority of the bombs dropped before Big Week were on towns near the French border or on the coast of the North Sea. The number of deep penetrations into German air space could be counted on the fingers of one hand and the bombers losses on those missions were enormous. When Big Week began the the 8th AAF had 2 P-38 groups and 2 P-51 groups (one on loan from the 9th AF) to provide long range escort. A third 9th AF P-51 group appeared in time for the last mission of Big Week.
In short the real battle of attrition began in February 1944 and the P-51 was a big part of it from the beginning. As I have pointed out elsewhere the P-47 posted the vast majority of it's claims in 1944, after the appearance of the P-51.
I do think that statements like "most of such times the Germans taught them real tough lessons, either wiping out the USAAF flight or giving them a battering with minimum or no losses from the German part." should be backed up by some proof.


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Jan 23, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> No in the instance that I am talking yes you can. Once the P-51D was at its patrol area over Germany it no longer had the 6 hours of flight time (or however long it was), because it had to get back to England. So during that time the Luftwaffe fighters were more on par with the time they could spend in the air. We are not talking about 1943 here or anything.
> 
> Understand what I am saying. Sure range is a great thing but lets say an aircraft has 2000mi range and it takes 600mi to get to its loiter spot and 600mi to get back. That leaves 800mi left that it can spend to fly around and search for enemy fighters. A Luftwaffe fighter with 800mi range (not talking about Bf-109 here but any fighter) can now stay in the air for the same amount of time.
> 
> Now it is just aircraft vs. aircraft and pilot vs. pilot.



Look at it from this point of view. If the P-51 and the 109 swapped places, the P-51 would likely not be as effective in the interceptor role because of it’s poor rate of climb and it’s meager armament, *except* for the fact that it wouldn’t have enemy fighters to worry about because the 109’s would have turned back at the French border. To claim that range doesn’t matter takes the very narrow view that only the interceptor role matters.


----------



## davparlr (Jan 23, 2007)

Soren said:


> I almost fully agree with you, however, even at low alt the later P-80A would probably be at a disadvantage in acceleration compared to the Me-262, but this is assuming both a/c are running at full throttle - something which was very risky for the Me-262 pilot as the axial flow Jumo engines could reach incredibly high temperatures if run too long at this setting, temperatures higher than the metals at the time could handle. - Like I said I don't think the true maximum speed of the Me-262 was ever recorded as the engines simply couldn't run full throttle for the needed amount of time.
> 
> As to the 1946 scenario, well by that time the Me-262 would've had different and more powerful engines while the P-80A had nearly just gotten its fixed.
> 
> And about the accounts suggesting the Me-262 broke the soundbarrier, well I agree speed indicators at the time were not accurate those speeds, besides the Me-262 was going to need alot more power to do this, and even then its not certain the airframe could take it - no doubt it came close though, but atleast another 100 - 150 km/h was needed.




I don't have any arguments here except the comment about the Me 262 having superior performance in 46. Both American and British were developing more powerful engines and had aircraft by late 46 and early 47 that were capable of 600 mph. The P-80B began delivery in early 47 and had a more powerful engine than the P-80A. The British had established a world speed record of 615 mph in 46, and this in a significantly reduced military budget. If Allied military development on jet aircraft had continued after mid 45, it is unrealistic to believe that significant performance increased would have occured. Also, I think you are making an assumption that the continued engine development would have solve the problems of the German jet engines. I don't doubt that they had the capibility to do this but I don't think there advances would be any faster than the Allies. Now the swept wing Me 262? That's something else but I would doubt that it would have made 1946.


----------



## davparlr (Jan 23, 2007)

renrich said:


> The Fw190 was a fine ww2 fighter and it seems that many members here pick the Fw 190D-9 as the best of the war. From a performance point of view I show the D-9 as making 426 mph at 21,650 ft with a time to climb to 19,685 ft of 7 min 6 sec with combat power and a range on internal fuel of 520 miles. The F4U-4 could make 446 mph at 26,200 ft, it's service ceiling was 41, 500 ft, it's rate of climb was 3870 fpm, and it had a range on internal fuel of 1005 miles. It had a better roll rate than the Mustang, was practically unbreakable, had an air cooled engine, (couldn't be brought down by a single round like the liquid cooled engined fighters) and in a pinch could carry a 4000 pound bomb load. It had excellent short field takeoff and landing characteristics. Sounds like a winner to me.



The F4U-4 was indeed a powerful aircraft and certainly should be considered a best fighter of WWII if we disregard the contribution to the war. This plane would be in a class with the P-47M and N, P-51H (a stretch but still was delivered by wars end) and various British and German latter war aircraft (Me 109Ks, Ta 152s, et. al.) that performed very well but contributed little. I would perfer that war contribution would be a factor in best WWII fighter.

The comment that it could not be brought down by a single bullet is ludicrious. If I was flying that plane, a single bullet would find away to shoot it down. It was a rugged plane, though! It would have been one of my nine plane airforce selection, another thread.


----------



## renrich (Jan 24, 2007)

Re the F4F-3 v Hurricane discussion and we are having an academic discussion here. There was plenty of ammo in the US, I have to believe that the radial engines were at least as reliable as the Merlins. The firing time for the Wildcat guns was 28.7 sec which has to be more than the Hurris and the the throw weight was 6.36 pd/sec which was substantially more than the Hurris. Add in a 1100 mile yardstick range, a 3300 fpm climb rate at sea level, a more rugged airframe and an engine more resistant to battle damage and the Wildcat or Martlet I could have been a formidable weapon for the RAF during the BOB if it had been available. My only point as far as this discussion is concerned is that there is a certain amount of academic prejudice that the shipboard fighters that fought in the Pacific were second class performers and couldn't compete in Europe. My opinion is that that prejudice is somewhat unfounded. It is interesting to speculate as to what type of aircraft the Royal Navy would have operated if, during the period 1918-1939, they had been allowed to develop their preferred designs.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 24, 2007)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> yes just what the RAF were looking for in 1940  and she proved she could do it later on...........



Sure did!



Marcel said:


> And training the muscles in your arm, as the gear was manual retracted with a bicycle chain



So.... 

It worked just fine!


----------



## renrich (Jan 24, 2007)

The single bullet statement is only meant to illustrate how, with a liquid cooled engine, a single well placed bullet in the cooling system can disable a fighter. Obviously a single bullet in a single seat fighter's pilot's head can bring down any aircraft. A survey of both American and British pilots at the fighter meet in Pautuxent River, Md. in 1944 showed that 79% named the R2800 as the engine which inspired the most confidence. 17% named the Merlin.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 24, 2007)

Reluctant Poster said:


> Look at it from this point of view. If the P-51 and the 109 swapped places, the P-51 would likely not be as effective in the interceptor role because of it’s poor rate of climb and it’s meager armament, *except* for the fact that it wouldn’t have enemy fighters to worry about because the 109’s would have turned back at the French border. To claim that range doesn’t matter takes the very narrow view that only the interceptor role matters.



No you are completely missing my point. My point is that once the P-51 was over Germany and was fighting a Bf-109 or Fw-190 that had just taken off, its range was negligent in the fight. Think about what I am saying.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 24, 2007)

renrich said:


> The single bullet statement is only meant to illustrate how, with a liquid cooled engine, a single well placed bullet in the cooling system can disable a fighter. Obviously a single bullet in a single seat fighter's pilot's head can bring down any aircraft. A survey of both American and British pilots at the fighter meet in Pautuxent River, Md. in 1944 showed that 79% named the R2800 as the engine which inspired the most confidence. 17% named the Merlin.



Yes radials are typically more rugged than the inline engines. A R2800 is more rugged than a Merlin however to think that a single well place bullet can not bring down a P-47 or that a single well placed bullet will not destroy a R2800 engine is naive.


----------



## davparlr (Jan 24, 2007)

renrich said:


> The single bullet statement is only meant to illustrate how, with a liquid cooled engine, a single well placed bullet in the cooling system can disable a fighter. Obviously a single bullet in a single seat fighter's pilot's head can bring down any aircraft. A survey of both American and British pilots at the fighter meet in Pautuxent River, Md. in 1944 showed that 79% named the R2800 as the engine which inspired the most confidence. 17% named the Merlin.



I'm sure there are a lot of single point failures in a R2800 that is suseptable to a bullet; oil pumps, oil lines, oil coolers, fuel lines, fuel pumps, even a lucky shot into one of the jugs could possibly cause failure of the engine. It was a tough engine and less complex and less vunerable than the Merlin, just not totally bullet proof.


----------



## Soren (Jan 24, 2007)

davparlr said:


> I don't have any arguments here except the comment about the Me 262 having superior performance in 46. Both American and British were developing more powerful engines and had aircraft by late 46 and early 47 that were capable of 600 mph. The P-80B began delivery in early 47 and had a more powerful engine than the P-80A. The British had established a world speed record of 615 mph in 46, and this in a significantly reduced military budget. If Allied military development on jet aircraft had continued after mid 45, it is unrealistic to believe that significant performance increased would have occured. Also, I think you are making an assumption that the continued engine development would have solve the problems of the German jet engines. I don't doubt that they had the capibility to do this but I don't think there advances would be any faster than the Allies. Now the swept wing Me 262? That's something else but I would doubt that it would have made 1946.



Well lets just agree to slightly disagree then


----------



## davparlr (Jan 24, 2007)

Soren said:


> Well lets just agree to slightly disagree then




Sounds fair to me!!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 24, 2007)

davparlr said:


> I'm sure there are a lot of single point failures in a R2800 that is suseptable to a bullet; oil pumps, oil lines, oil coolers, fuel lines, fuel pumps, even a lucky shot into one of the jugs could possibly cause failure of the engine. It was a tough engine and less complex and less vunerable than the Merlin, just not totally bullet proof.



No Way Man! Are you lieing to us! You mean to tell me that bullets would just fly off the R2800 like it was Superman! 

Sorry I could not resist.


----------



## davparlr (Jan 24, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> No Way Man! Are you lieing to us! You mean to tell me that bullets would just fly off the R2800 like it was Superman!
> 
> Sorry I could not resist.



I don't know, after all, it was an American engine. In fact I think I read somewhere where it was the engine that won the war!!


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Jan 24, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> No you are completely missing my point. My point is that once the P-51 was over Germany and was fighting a Bf-109 or Fw-190 that had just taken off, its range was negligent in the fight. Think about what I am saying.



I know exactly what you're saying. Under a specific set of circumstances it did well. As an escort fighter over Britain and over Malta, not so well.


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Jan 24, 2007)

renrich said:


> Re the F4F-3 v Hurricane discussion and we are having an academic discussion here. There was plenty of ammo in the US, I have to believe that the radial engines were at least as reliable as the Merlins. The firing time for the Wildcat guns was 28.7 sec which has to be more than the Hurris and the the throw weight was 6.36 pd/sec which was substantially more than the Hurris. Add in a 1100 mile yardstick range, a 3300 fpm climb rate at sea level, a more rugged airframe and an engine more resistant to battle damage and the Wildcat or Martlet I could have been a formidable weapon for the RAF during the BOB if it had been available. My only point as far as this discussion is concerned is that there is a certain amount of academic prejudice that the shipboard fighters that fought in the Pacific were second class performers and couldn't compete in Europe. My opinion is that that prejudice is somewhat unfounded. It is interesting to speculate as to what type of aircraft the Royal Navy would have operated if, during the period 1918-1939, they had been allowed to develop their preferred designs.




The first production F4F was accepted by the Royal Navy AFTER the start of the Battle of Britain. The USN got their first after the BoB was over. By the end of the BoB there was a grand total of 85 F4F's in existance. Taking into account the time required for pilot training on a brand new aircraft it's impossible for the F4F to have made any impact on the BoB. It wasn't ready in time.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 25, 2007)

Reluctant Poster said:


> I know exactly what you're saying. Under a specific set of circumstances it did well. As an escort fighter over Britain and over Malta, not so well.



Are you talking about the Bf-109 or the P-51 because my arguement is about the P-51. Were our posts going right past each other.


----------



## Morai_Milo (Jan 25, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> 62 German fighters were lost in Air to Air Combat to Allied fighters. 70 Allied aircraft were shot down. You see with closer numerical numbers the Luftwaffe did not fair to bad against Allied Aircraft.
> 
> 88 German fighters were lost to Allied ground fire and 84 were lost to German ground fire.



In the well researched Bodenplatte book by John Manrho and Ron Putz, Appendix 5, 

LW aerial combat claims

Fernschreiben II.Jako.Ic Nr.140/44 geh. vom 3.1.45

55 destroyed, 11 probables

Luftwaffenfuhrungsstab 1c, Fremde Luftwaffen West, Nr.1160/45Sg.vom 25.2.45

65 claimed, 12 probable

A list by pilot has 52 claims. 

Chap. 13

Allied aerial losses were 15 shot down and 10 damaged. Six more were lost to other various reasons. Allied aerial claims of LW a/c was 97. Allied AA made 129 claims.

German flak claimed 15 LW fighters and 2 Ju88 Lotsen, for sure. Adding 1/2 of the losses to unknown reasons only brings the number to 30-35 a/c shot down by 'friendly' flak.

LW losses:
271 Bf109/Fw190 destroyed (60-100%)
65 Bf109/Fw190 damaged 

9 Ju88 destroyed
2 Ju88 damaged

Losses by reason:
47% Allied AA
23% Allied fighters
5% German flak
5% accidents
5% by either Allied AA or fighters
3% technical reasons
1% fuel starvation
11% unknown


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 26, 2007)

Interesting info there, but if you look at any source they are all different. I dont think it will ever be confirmed so I go with the most accepted stats and that is what I posted up there.


----------



## Morai_Milo (Jan 26, 2007)

I suggest you get the book published in 2004, after years of extensive research. It is the most comprehensive study of Bodenplatte ever published. You can sluff it off and have a closed mind if you what, but that is your loss. Will you sluff off Erich's book when it comes out because it does not jive with what has been written before?

Just to show how extensive the research was for this book, the fate of 15 missing LW members, 8 being from Bodenplatte, were discovered.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 26, 2007)

renrich said:


> The single bullet statement is only meant to illustrate how, with a liquid cooled engine, a single well placed bullet in the cooling system can disable a fighter. Obviously a single bullet in a single seat fighter's pilot's head can bring down any aircraft. A survey of both American and British pilots at the fighter meet in Pautuxent River, Md. in 1944 showed that 79% named the R2800 as the engine which inspired the most confidence. 17% named the Merlin.



in that case i'm willing to bet that 19% of Pilots asked were British and 81% were American  have you any more information on this claim? and don't just look at the black and white of "it's an inline and must be weak", obviously the Merlin's weaker than a R-2800 but that does not change the fact that she was one of the most reliable and widely used engines of the war..........


----------



## renrich (Jan 26, 2007)

Look at the sorties versus losses in Europe of the P47 with a radial engine versus the P51, P38 and P40, all with liquid cooled engines and most with Merlins. It seems obvious to me that an inline liquid cooled engine is more vulnerable to battle damage than a radial air cooled engine. That is the reason the US Navy insisted on air cooled engines because flying over water demanded a more reliable and rugged engine than flying over land.


----------



## renrich (Jan 26, 2007)

You are mostly correct about the F4F-3. The British took delivery of the first Martlet on July 27, 1940. By Oct. 40 the FAA had 81 Martlets. They could not have had any impact on the BOB. However the US Navy was using the first production F4F by April, 1940.


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 26, 2007)

renrich said:


> Look at the sorties versus losses in Europe of the P47 with a radial engine versus the P51, P38 and P40, all with liquid cooled engines and most with Merlins. It seems obvious to me that an inline liquid cooled engine is more vulnerable to battle damage than a radial air cooled engine. That is the reason the US Navy insisted on air cooled engines because flying over water demanded a more reliable and rugged engine than flying over land.



Agreed radials are more resistant to damage than inlines but that point has never really been a matter of discussion here...

And the majority of those aircraft you named were powered by Allisons not Merlins...


----------



## Morai_Milo (Jan 26, 2007)

Gnomey said:


> Agreed radials are more resistant to damage than inlines but that point has never really been a matter of discussion here...
> 
> And the majority of those aircraft you named were powered by Allisons not Merlins...


Only the P-38 was totally powered by Allisons. Only a handful of the P-51 family used Allisons and the P40 family was split between Allison and Merlin.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 26, 2007)

Morai_Milo said:


> It is the most comprehensive study of Bodenplatte ever published.



Very might well be. As a aviation enthusiast I wll check it out. I dont happen to be as closed minded as you accuse me of!

So quit with your attitude, especially when you have all of 4 posts in this forum.



Morai_Milo said:


> You can sluff it off and have a closed mind if you what, but that is your loss.



I am not in a good mood tonight, dont accuse me of things when you do not know me. You got that NOOB!!!! 

I dont know what they teach you where you come from, but where I am from you get to know people before you judge them. Dont ever judge a book by its cover. You got that! My recommendation to you is this: Look around the forum and learn about this site before talking ****!



Morai Milo said:


> Will you sluff off Erich's book when it comes out because it does not jive with what has been written before?



First of all me and Erich exchange info on a daily basis. If he has info then I read and learn from it. Dont talk **** NOOB!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 26, 2007)

renrich said:


> Look at the sorties versus losses in Europe of the P47 with a radial engine versus the P51, P38 and P40, all with liquid cooled engines and most with Merlins. It seems obvious to me that an inline liquid cooled engine is more vulnerable to battle damage than a radial air cooled engine. That is the reason the US Navy insisted on air cooled engines because flying over water demanded a more reliable and rugged engine than flying over land.



No one has ever argued that a radial succumed to battle damage more than an inline. Everyone knows that radials are more rugged and reliable, however what people seem to think is that radials were bullet proof! You put rounds into a radial engine it is going to break or atleast not work efficiently.

It does not matter if you have an inline or a radial. Damage to the engine is bad and all engines are succeptable to damage.


----------



## Chingachgook (Jan 26, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Very might well be. As a aviation enthusiast I wll check it out. I dont happen to be as closed minded as you accuse me of!
> 
> So quit with your attitude, especially when you have all of 4 posts in this forum.
> 
> ...



Alder, chill m8. 

Milo is getting a lashing for this? Are his words so bad? 

Did you smack Kurfürst down for being such a swell guy toward me (and to Steve Hinton)? 

[My apologies in advance if something else is wrong, you said you were not in a good mood, I hope it is nothing serious]


----------



## Soren (Jan 27, 2007)

Christ Chinny !


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 27, 2007)

Chingachgook said:


> Alder, chill m8.
> 
> Milo is getting a lashing for this? Are his words so bad?
> 
> ...



Alright Ching, you stay out of this. Are you a moderator? Then leave the moderating to the moderators. You got that!

We deal with Kurfurst when things get out of hand, he did not get out of hand yet. I also dont need to justify myself to you. I dont have anything against you and you have been a fine member here, dont change that.


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Jan 27, 2007)

Morai_Milo said:


> Only the P-38 was totally powered by Allisons. Only a handful of the P-51 family used Allisons and the P40 family was split between Allison and Merlin.



The vast majority of P-40's used Allisons. Only about 2200 Merlin powered out of 13143 total.


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Jan 27, 2007)

renrich said:


> You are mostly correct about the F4F-3. The British took delivery of the first Martlet on July 27, 1940. By Oct. 40 the FAA had 81 Martlets. They could not have had any impact on the BOB. However the US Navy was using the first production F4F by April, 1940.



The USN may have had the first one in April, but production was a trickle, they only had about 20 by the end of 1940.


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Jan 27, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Are you talking about the Bf-109 or the P-51 because my arguement is about the P-51. Were our posts going right past each other.



Obviously not very clear on my part. The point is the 109 was did the job as an interceptor, but was less sucessful in the escort role.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 27, 2007)

i don't think that's ever been in doubt because of her range..........


----------



## renrich (Jan 27, 2007)

Out of 13143 P40s built, 2013 had the Merlin engine, the Fs and Ls.


----------



## Chingachgook (Jan 27, 2007)

This is just a public forum Adler, not the military. Put your guns away.
Nope I am not a moderator, but I am a witness to what you are doing.
I know that you are normally a good guy, nothing I could say here can change that, but you are in a piss poor mood, and worse yet you have a conflict of interest - you are a participant in the forum as well as the moderator. 
You are using your position as moderator to call milo names etc because of something he said to *YOU*. Not good PR to the new guy, and not a good example to the rest of us (yep, I am a hypocrite, I know I wouldn't do any better, but then I am not the moderator).
Despite your "high position" here, you are not justified in principle, and you owe him an apology. milo seems to have had some things to offer, you chased him away - out of your own pride. Don't be using power for yourself, if you want to use power - use it on behalf of someone else. 

I probably signed some sacred agreement saying that I would never argue with a mod, so now I will be kicked out. I am sorry that I put you in that position. 



DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Alright Ching, you stay out of this. Are you a moderator? Then leave the moderating to the moderators. You got that!
> 
> We deal with Kurfurst when things get out of hand, he did not get out of hand yet. I also don't need to justify myself to you. I don't have anything against you and you have been a fine member here, don't change that.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 27, 2007)

Reluctant Poster said:


> Obviously not very clear on my part. The point is the 109 was did the job as an interceptor, but was less sucessful in the escort role.





We deffinatly were talking past each other here. I was not referring to the 109 as an escort fighter. It was a lousy escort fighter with its minimal range.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 27, 2007)

Chingachgook said:


> This is just a public forum Adler, not the military. Put your guns away.
> Nope I am not a moderator, but I am a witness to what you are doing.
> I know that you are normally a good guy, nothing I could say here can change that, but you are in a piss poor mood, and worse yet you have a conflict of interest - you are a participant in the forum as well as the moderator.
> You are using your position as moderator to call milo names etc because of something he said to *YOU*. Not good PR to the new guy, and not a good example to the rest of us (yep, I am a hypocrite, I know I wouldn't do any better, but then I am not the moderator).
> ...



No Ching there is no sacred agreement. When someone insults me however trivial it is, I will take it back at them. Hopefully they will knock it off. 

He apologizes to me, I drop it. I dont hold grudges against anyone. He had the attitude and insults, I returned in kind the ball is in his court.

Now having said that, you are not a moderator here, let it go now...


----------



## Thumper (Jan 27, 2007)

I cant believe you guys havent named the ZERO...geez...it could oufly any of those ...outrange any of those...and certainly wasnt defeated until better tactics were created

seems to me theres a lil bias going on


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 27, 2007)

Zeros' been talked about on here for many years, and also in this thread.... The Zero was outclassed very early on, and never recovered... Not the best all time, but in the beginning years it was...

Ching, u need to mind ur own biz.... I would have done the same thing with his insult... U dont come on here and start sh!t with a Mod, and that sh!t u just pulled out ur ass is gonna get ur ass in a sling...


> you are a participant in the forum as well as the moderator.
> You are using your position as moderator to call milo names etc because of something he said to YOU. Not good PR to the new guy, and not a good example to the rest of us


If we need the advice of some schwantz with 200 posts, I'll open up my toilet lid and ask the turd I dropped in there his/her advice...

Both will matter about the same...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 28, 2007)

Thumper said:


> I cant believe you guys havent named the ZERO...geez...it could oufly any of those ...outrange any of those...and certainly wasnt defeated until better tactics were created
> 
> seems to me theres a lil bias going on



The Zero is a myth. It was only superior at low speeds. At high speeds it stick was hard and it lots its great maneuverabilty. Yeah it had great range, but to get that range it lacked in armament and armour protection for its crew, plus it did not self sealing tanks.

It is a myth and that is been proven several times on this forum.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 28, 2007)

I tried to tell you Ching, now you got Les involved and I cant do nothing for you.


----------



## Chingachgook (Jan 29, 2007)

Adler,

I feared that it was only a matter of time before les would show up.

I admit it now, I am outgunned. 

There is no way to match les's subtle toilet imagery. (ching cowers in the corner).  

I am ill prepared to do battle at his level because it is not often that I interact with his class of people.

Seems that les feels that I am les than what he flushes.  I guess this is his way of moderating?

I warn you though, I will be back when I have 20k posts. Quantity is everything at ww2aircraft.net...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 29, 2007)

Ching you are outgunned against moderator when you go up against them...


----------



## Udet (Jan 29, 2007)

Chin: welcome to the forum.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 29, 2007)

It aint that bad Udet.


----------



## Udet (Jan 29, 2007)

Adler, i know. By welcoming Chinggy i was referring to the fact he has know learned how this forum functions (many might not like it and are free to leave at their convenience, many others do like it and have learned how to swim in stormy seas). 8)


----------



## SpitfireKing (Jan 29, 2007)

My, sharp teeth. Big bite and bark.
Yeah, the forums get crazy sometime. Heck, I got chewed out by Les awhile back. Not fun....But yeah, the forums are fun, I'm happy I got back, missed the perries and counter blows.Ting ting clang, all that crazy shite.


----------



## SpitfireKing (Jan 29, 2007)

renrich said:


> Out of 13143 P40s built, 2013 had the Merlin engine, the Fs and Ls.



Many fighters used the rolls-royce merlin engine. The Mustang, eventually the Spitfire. Quite a few. Considering it was a very good engine, makes sense.


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 29, 2007)

SpitfireKing said:


> The Mustang, eventually the Spitfire. Quite a few. Considering it was a very good engine, makes sense.



I think you mean eventually the Mustang as the Spitfire was always powered by a Merlin. I agree with you it was a good engine which is proved by the number of successful types that were powered by Merlins.


----------



## davparlr (Jan 29, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> While the P-51 was more maneuverable than the P-47. The P-51 was not th greatest thing since bread and butter. Was it a great plane? Absolutely yes, one of the best ever built. But what really was the only thing that it had in advantage over other aircraft. Its range. There were other American, British, and German aircraft were faster and more manueverable.
> 
> Once the P-51 got over the target, you can take its range out of the equation because now it is just fighter vs. fighter over Germany and the P-51 no longer has to get to the target, it is there.
> 
> ...



Okay, I know that this is the designated “bash the P-51 Website”, but I have to defend the P-51 here. While I do not believe it is the greatest fighter of WWII (I do not believe there is any aircraft that could claim this title, I liked the best nine plane air force thread), if one could be crowned, I think that it has a legitimate claim. This is my argument for the P-51. 

The P-51 is probably the cleanest propeller driven aircraft used (reasonably) in the war. As for rationale, the P-51B, in 1944, had a top speed of 386 mph (tested) using somewhat around 1650 hp. This is faster than any other aircraft in my data base (except the P-51H) which includes the P-47M and N, Bf-109K-4, Fw-190D-9, Ta-152H-1, Spitfire Mk XIV, and Spitfire Mk 21. The Fw-190D-9 is very close with roughly the same top speed but with a 100 more hp (1750 hp). The P-51D is slower by 10 mph at about the same hp as the B (probably in the same drag class as the Dora). While this in itself is not a requirement for a great fighter, it does mean that it is fast. And speed is a big factor.

When the P-51B entered into combat at the end of 1943 till basically the end of 1944, Germany did not have an effective answer for the P-51 over the skies of Germany, from ground level to 35,000 feet. Not until the end of 1944 did Germany start to introduce aircraft that could threaten the P-51s flying overhead, the Fw-190D, Bf-109K, and the Ta-152H. Of these, the Fw-190D could only dominate below 25,000 ft, and the Ta-152 easily dominated over 25,000 ft. but only the Bf-109K was superior from sea level to 35,000 ft (although the P-51B could give it a run for the money).

Of course, most of the data is airspeed and climbing ability so roll rate (I don’t think is a P-51 strong point) and turn rates aren’t included (although I think the P-51 had a pretty good turn rate). Neither is dive speed, which the P-51 also probably did well in. Also, fire power and armor in not included (too many variables). Here are some comparisons to the contemporary German aircraft of 1944. The data below reflects the best I could find in flight test and/or engineering analysis and some from this site’s participants. My objective always is to have the best data. So, if these are wrong, please let me know, including if I have not included a significant aircraft or model. Also, Russian and Italian aircraft are not included because I don’t know anything about them and have no data. I am sure there are a lot of limited use aircraft that performed better during this period but I wanted to keep it to the most participating aircraft.

Speed 
SL: P-51D(B)-*375(386) mph*, Bf-109G-*326 mph*, Fw-190A-8 *351 mph *
10k ft: P-51D(B)-*416(420) mph*, Bf-109G-*362 mph*, Fw-190A-8 *360 mph*
20k ft: P-51D(B)-*420(442) mph*, Bf-109G-*399 mph*, Fw-190A-8 *405 mph*
30k ft: P-51D(B)-*440(434) mph*, Bf-109G-*400 mph*, Fw-190A-8 *386 mph*
Max speed: P-51D(B)-*442(445), *Bf-109G-*420*, Fw-190A-8 *416*

Climb
SL: P-51D(B)-*3600(4320) ft/sec*, Bf-109G-*4113 ft/sec*, Fw-190A-8 *3300 ft/sec*
10k ft: P-51D(B)-*2800(3750) ft/sec*, Bf-109G-*3780 ft/sec*, Fw-190A-8 *2400 ft/sec*
20k ft: P-51D(B)-*3000(3350) ft/sec*, Bf-109G-*3097 ft/sec*, Fw-190A-8 *2400 ft/sec*
30k ft: P-51D(B)-*1700(1600) ft/sec*, Bf-109G-*1625 ft/sec*, Fw-190A-8 *1080 ft/sec*

Here are some allied aircraft of the same period. Question marks indicate that I do not have data.

Speed mph
SL: F4U-1-*365*, P-47D-25-*333*, Spit Mk IX-*329*, Spit Mk XIV-*363*
10k: F4U-1-*377*, P-47D-25-*376*, Spit Mk IX-*374*, Spit Mk XIV-*387*
20k: F4U-1-*430*, P-47D-25-*406*, Spit Mk IX-*390*, Spit Mk XIV-*423*
30k: F4U-1-*?*, P-47D-25-*433*, Spit Mk IX-*413*, Spit Mk XIV-*443*

Climb in ft/min
SL: F4U-1-*3200*, P-47D-25-*2870*, Spit Mk IX-*?*, Spit Mk XIV-*4580* 
10k: F4U-1-*3020*, P-47D-25-*?*, Spit Mk IX-*3820*, Spit Mk XIV-*3600* 
20k: F4U-1-*2200*, P-47D-25-*2180*, Spit Mk IX-*2930*, Spit Mk XIV-*3600* 
30k: F4U-1-*1150*, P-47D-25-*1400*, Spit Mk IX-*2280*, Spit Mk XIV-*2390* 

Some comments on aircraft.

Sorry about not including the P-38, but all the data I had was for the F, which didn’t stack up too well to the P-51.

The Bf-109G was comparable in climb, but was significantly slower at all altitudes.

The Fw-190A-8 was slower than the P-51B/D at all altitudes and had slower climb at all altitudes to the P-51B. The P-51D also had better climb performance at all altitudes than the Fw-190 except at 25k ft.

The F4U-1 had some speed and climb advantage over the P-51D only between 15 and 20k ft. The P-51B was superior in speed and climb to the F4U-1 over all altitudes. 

The P-47D-25 was faster than the P-51B/D above 30k. It appears that the P-51B/D had a better climb except at very high altitudes (the P-47D had a higher ceiling)

The Spitfire IX was significantly slower than the P-51B/D at all altitudes. The Spitfire IX could climb significantly better than the P-51D at almost all altitudes. The P-51B climb was better than, and less than, the Spitfire over various altitudes, the Spitfire was consistently better in climb above 20k.

The Spitfire XIV was significantly slower than the P-51B/D below 20k ft, The D was equal at 20k. The Spitfire was faster than the P-51B/D above 30k ft. The Spitfire and P-51B were roughly equivalent in climb up to 20k ft. The P-51 did not perform as well. Above 20k ft, the Spitfire was significantly better than the P-51B/D in climb. Overall, the Spitfire Mk XIV was superior to the P-51B/D above 20k ft.


As seen above, in 1944, the P-51B/D had performance advantages in speed and/or climb over enemy and allied aircraft over a majority of the airspace. Only the Spitfire Mk XIV had a significant advantage over a significant amount of airspace.

As far as air-to-ground, the P-51 does not come close to the P-47, F4U, and I am sure several German and British designs in capability.

By itself, this performance is impressive but tied with the real greatness of the P-51, and the part that the Spitfire Mk XIV could not do, was that it could fly from England to Germany, deal with the enemy with the above advantages, and then fly home to England.

1944 was the year of the Mustang. So was 1945, but only because of quantity. Other planes participated in earlier years and some dominated for a period (Fw-190A comes to mind), but, I think none did it as long as the P-51B/D. I could be wrong, make an argument.

This should stimulate some people.


----------



## Soren (Jan 30, 2007)

The P-51B would only climb at +4,000 ft/min with a seriously boosted engine and low weight. And even at this climb rate it doesn't reach 20,000 ft as fast as the Bf-109G-2 or Dora-9 for example - and the 109G-10 14 dominate it completely in the climb. 

The Dora-9 could out-run the P-51 from SL up to 6km, and maneuverability was way better than that of the P-51.

And about the P-51's turn rate, it was low, and the laminar flow airfoil bares much of the blame. - A clean A-8 could match it for sure.

The P-51 was great only because of its range and numbers, and while its speed was good in 1943 it wasn't anything special by mid 1944 where most German fighters were either faster or as fast. However it must be said that at the altitudes where the bombers flew the P-51 did have good performance, and a Fw-190A would definitely be at a disadvantage at these heights.

Btw, the Fw-190 A-8 has a climb rate of 18 m/s (3,543 ft/min) and a SL speed of 578 km/h (359 mph) at 1.65 ata.


----------



## davparlr (Jan 30, 2007)

Soren said:


> The P-51B would only climb at +4,000 ft/min with a seriously boosted engine and low weight.



Values are flight test data, so I guess the airplane was capable of this performance. Test was made at 9860 lbs, 120 lbs below gross. I don't think you can consider that low weight.



> And even at this climb rate it doesn't reach 20,000 ft as fast as the Bf-109G-2 or Dora-9 for example



True, but not significantly off the pace of the seriously boosted P-51B. My data shows 5.2 min for the 109, 5.8 for the Dora, and 5.8 for the P-51B. At 15 and 25k the performance is almost awash. I should note here that the P-51D is not as good a performer.



> - and the 109G-10 14 dominate it completely in the climb.



I don't have much data on the G-10 and none on the 14. I do have a time to 20k ft for the G-10 at 6 minutes, which is roughly the same as the P-51B at 5.8 min. I also have a top speed of the G-10 at 353 mph at SL, 413 mph at 16.4 ft, and 390 at 21.6k ft. All, except 16.4k ft, well below the P-51B/D by 20 to 30 mph, at 16.4k ft, the P-51D is equal.



> The Dora-9 could out-run the P-51 from SL up to 6km, and maneuverability was way better than that of the P-51.



No argument, The Dora-9 was a great aircraft under 20k. It came out very late in 44.




> And about the P-51's turn rate, it was low, and the laminar flow airfoil bares much of the blame. - A clean A-8 could match it for sure.



I don't have a lot of data on turn rate. I have seen a document from spitfireperformance, http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/wade-turning.jpg, that indicates the P-51 could outturn both the Fw-190 and Bf-109, but I know you have arguments here and it is not well defined in altitude and airspeed, so I would not use it to support any argument. I do have some test data performed in 1990 on roll rates, between the P-51, P-47, F6F and FG1 (F4U-1 without folding wings). These were performed without stressing the aircraft but does show a comparison. Test was done at 10k ft, 220kts. The P-51 rolled right at 53 degrees/sec, left at 55, the P-47 was 61 and 66, the F6F at 26 and 48, and the FG1 at 49 and 58. This indicates that the P-51 was in midst of some noted performers. It did not out roll a Fw-190 for sure, which was exceptional.



> The P-51 was great only because of its range and numbers, and while its speed was good in 1943 it wasn't anything special by mid 1944 where most German fighters were either faster or as fast.



It was great because of range, numbers and because that it was no less than a formidable fighter after flying for four hours. I don't think you can find an operational German fighter on the front line that is faster from SL to 35k than a P-51B/D (maybe a D at 20k which seems at a low point in power but still make 420 mph) in mid 44. I can be convinced otherwise with data.

Like I said, I don't think the P-51 is the greatest fighter. I don't think any aircraft can claim that title. There were others that did better in different environments. Certainly in the air-to-ground roles. But, overall it was an exceptional machine and did great in some areas and was acceptable in many others. In my mind it is like the T-34 tank. When it appeared, it dominated the battlefield and caused a scurry to counter and by the time the Germans could conteract it, they were appearing in hordes.

I do think too much is made of the P-51 at the expense of the other great WWII aircraft (kind of like the common thought here that the U.S. won the war by itself) and service is provided to educate others on these aircraft. Sometimes, on the other hand, I think the P-51 is belittled because of that, and that is when I tend to jump to its defense.



> Btw, the Fw-190 A-8 has a climb rate of 18 m/s (3,543 ft/min) and a SL speed of 578 km/h (359 mph) at 1.65 ata.



I have corrected my data base, thanks. My 59 year old eyes have large plus-or-minus error on reading graphs.


----------



## SpitfireKing (Jan 30, 2007)

Gnomey said:


> I think you mean eventually the Mustang as the Spitfire was always powered by a Merlin. I agree with you it was a good engine which is proved by the number of successful types that were powered by Merlins.



Oh yes, thanks gnomey.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 30, 2007)

davparlr said:


> Okay, I know that this is the designated “bash the P-51 Website"



I am sorry if it seems that way, but I think a lot of people get caught up in the myth that there was nothing else that won the war other than the P-51D and that British and Germans could come up with nothing that was better than the P-51.

I disagree with they myth. I think it was a great aircraft but not the best.



davparlr said:


> 1944 was the year of the Mustang. So was 1945, but only because of quantity. Other planes participated in earlier years and some dominated for a period (Fw-190A comes to mind), but, I think none did it as long as the P-51B/D. I could be wrong, make an argument.
> 
> This should stimulate some people.



And why did it dominate....superior numbers.


----------



## Parmigiano (Jan 30, 2007)

Dav,

I don't want to argue, but I would take this data with extreme care.
We know that measurement conditions are rarely the same when we compare performance data from different sources, and some of your data seems too favorable to P51.

For instance let's compare P51D and Spit IX who roughly share the same engine, and use some basic common sense. 

Even for base measures like weight data are never exactly the same, but more easily controllable.
Taking wikipedia (just as example) the weight difference is huge.

In lbs we have 

Spit IX empty 5090 loaded 6622 max 6770
P51D empty 7040 loaded 9200 max 12100

Having the birds the same engine, having the P51 the famous laminar flow wing that optimize speed at expense of lift, i.e. it seems not credible that the rate of climb to 20k is 2930ft/s for the spit and 3000 for the P51D

Even more difficult to assess if the data of the German crafts are comparable with the US and British data, I think that the best we have is the (in)famous RAF test between Spit IX and Faber's 190A3 (even with all the arguments about the 190 having a derated or faulty engine, there is people in this forum who knows a lot more than I can say...)


----------



## SpitfireKing (Jan 30, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I am sorry if it seems that way, but I think a lot of people get caught up in the myth that there was nothing else that won the war other than the P-51D and that British and Germans could come up with nothing that was better than the P-51.
> 
> I disagree with they myth. I think it was a great aircraft but not the best.
> 
> ...



Well, you are right about that. BUT! Some things are pretty impressive about it, if you ask me. But hey, I'm just a Mustang fan.


----------



## davparlr (Jan 30, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I disagree with they myth. I think it was a great aircraft but not the best.



We agree





> And why did it dominate....superior numbers.



True for 1945, not for 1944. My hypothesis here is that the P-51B/D had performance qualities that allowed it to be more than competitive with 1944 German aircraft mainstay. These qualities included airspeed at all altitudes, competitive or better climb rates (Bf 109 was equivalent (some models maybe better) and equvialent service ceiling, but was slower) and, I suspect, dive speed.

I would agree that "dominate" is a word caused by the numbers of P-51s, but the P-51 performance in itself, while not superior enough to dominate, was enough to make things sporty for German defenders. 

All in all, a German pilot in a Fw-190 or Bf-109 would not feel overly confident in tangling with a competent P-51 pilot, nor vice versa. But, because of the P-51, the fight was over Berlin.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 30, 2007)

SpitfireKing said:


> Well, you are right about that. BUT! Some things are pretty impressive about it, if you ask me. But hey, I'm just a Mustang fan.



The only thing impressive about it was its range. Nothing else.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 30, 2007)

davparlr said:


> I would agree that "dominate" is a word caused by the numbers of P-51s, but the P-51 performance in itself, while not superior enough to dominate, was enough to make things sporty for German defenders.



Completely agree with you.



davparlr said:


> All in all, a German pilot in a Fw-190 or Bf-109 would not feel overly confident in tangling with a competent P-51 pilot, nor vice versa. But, because of the P-51, the fight was over Berlin.



That I agree with and is undisputable. The P-51 was an excellent aircraft and was atleast equal to everything else out there. Even aircraft that were superior to it were not going to beat a P-51 just because of its characteristics or what not.

A lot of it comes down to luck, in my opinion. You make a wrong move, you are done. And if not luck, surprise, and that is on both sides.


----------



## Hop (Jan 30, 2007)

> The Spitfire IX was significantly slower than the P-51B/D at all altitudes. The Spitfire IX could climb significantly better than the P-51D at almost all altitudes.



The Spitfire IX climbed significantly better than the P-51D at all altitudes.

The P-51D ROC at combat power:

0ft - 3600ft/min
4,800ft - 3600 ft/min
16,000ft - 3200 ft/min
20,000ft - 3050 ft/min
30,000ft - 1700 ft/min


Spitfire LF IX at combat power

0ft - 4600 ft/min
4,800ft - 4670 ft/min
16,000ft - 3860 ft/min
20,000ft - 3560 ft/min
30,000ft - 2,120 ft/min



> The P-51B climb was better than, and less than, the Spitfire over various altitudes, the Spitfire was consistently better in climb above 20k.



Again, the Spitfire had a better rate of climb at all altitudes.

The only problem with comparing P-51B and Spitfire IX variants is that both came with different engines. The P-51B had either the low alt V-1670-7 or high alt -7 engine, the Spitfire either the low alt Merlin 66, the medium alt Merlin 61 or 63, or the high alt Merlin 70.

To compare similar versions, the P-51B with -7 engine, direct competitor to the Spitfire above:

0ft - 3750 ft/min
4,800ft - 3920 ft/min
16,000ft - 3150 ft/min
20,000ft - 3100 ft/min
30,000ft - 1600 ft/min

The high alt engines in both planes reduced climb rate at lower altitude, increased it at higher altitude.



> The Spitfire and P-51B were roughly equivalent in climb up to 20k ft. The P-51 did not perform as well.



Climb rate figures for the Spitfire XIV

0ft - 4700 ft/min
4,800ft - 4650 ft/min
16,000ft - 3700 ft/min
20,000ft - 3650 ft/min
30,000ft - 2350 ft/min

As you can see, the Spitfire XIV had a considerably better rate of climb at all altitudes.

To sum up, the findings of the AFDU on the P-51B vs the Spitfire IX:

The Mustang III has a considerably lower rate of climb at full power at all heights. (In a formation take off, Spitfire IX maintains formation with 5lbs less boost)

And P-51B vs Spitfire XIV:

Maximum climb
The Spitfire XIV is very much better.


----------



## davparlr (Jan 30, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> A lot of it comes down to luck, in my opinion. You make a wrong move, you are done. And if not luck, surprise, and that is on both sides.



I had a self defense instructor who said, answering a question about who would win, a boxer, a judo expert, or karate expert, that it would be the one who knew his sport the best. I think that is generally true with fighters. The best ones were shrewed and knew their aircraft weaknesses and strengths and the one that use those most effectively, won. Of course, luck certainly helps. Also, surprise is the best victor.


----------



## davparlr (Jan 30, 2007)

Hop said:


> The Spitfire IX climbed significantly better than the P-51D at all altitudes.



I don't really have much to say. I knew the data I was using was a basic IX and that the LF versions had bigger engines and had better performance. I didn't have too good of data on them. Your info is reasonable. I think the LF IX was still a bit slower than the P-51B/D



> Maximum climb
> The Spitfire XIV is very much better.



No argument here on climb. The XIV does appear to be slower under 20k ft (especially compared to the P-51B), but it is clearly superior to the P-51B/D above 20k in both speed and climb.

The only thing the IX and XIV lacked compared to the P-51 was range.

All the engine changes and nomenclature differences between the Spitfire and Mustang gives me a headache.


----------



## davparlr (Jan 30, 2007)

Parmigiano said:


> Dav,
> 
> I don't want to argue, but I would take this data with extreme care.
> We know that measurement conditions are rarely the same when we compare performance data from different sources, and some of your data seems too favorable to P51.
> ...



The P-51 data I think is pretty good and based on flight test data. The Spit IX data if probably not appropriate as it is based on a lower performing IX than may had been available, see post above. Also, the P-51 engine may be different than the Spit. In general, though, I think you can pretty well assume the IX and XIV Spitfire models had a better climb rate than the Mustang (and better turn rate).



> Even more difficult to assess if the data of the German crafts are comparable with the US and British data, I think that the best we have is the (in)famous RAF test between Spit IX and Faber's 190A3 (even with all the arguments about the 190 having a derated or faulty engine, there is people in this forum who knows a lot more than I can say...)



I try to take information on German aircraft from Soren if I can. He seems to have the best German test information. I perfer this over some of the Allied test of German aircraft.


----------



## Soren (Jan 31, 2007)

davparlr said:


> Values are flight test data, so I guess the airplane was capable of this performance. Test was made at 9860 lbs, 120 lbs below gross. I don't think you can consider that low weight.



I know of the test and it was achieved using 44-1 fuel, another test done 5 days later at 75" HG gave a max climb rate of 4,380 ft/min at a 9,300 lbs weight - max SL speed was 360 mph.

A test made in June 1944 shows a time to climb 20k of just over 6min at 75" HG: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/eglin-p51b-climb.jpg

And a top SL speed of 374 mph at 75" HG: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/eglin-p51b-level.jpg




> True, but not significantly off the pace of the seriously boosted P-51B. My data shows 5.2 min for the 109, 5.8 for the Dora, and 5.8 for the P-51B. At 15 and 25k the performance is almost awash. I should note here that the P-51D is not as good a performer.


 
Correct, however the Dora-9 would actually reach 20k in just 5min if the ETC-504 rack wasn't attached.



> I don't have much data on the G-10 and none on the 14. I do have a time to 20k ft for the G-10 at 6 minutes, which is roughly the same as the P-51B at 5.8 min. I also have a top speed of the G-10 at 353 mph at SL, 413 mph at 16.4 ft, and 390 at 21.6k ft. All, except 16.4k ft, well below the P-51B/D by 20 to 30 mph, at 16.4k ft, the P-51D is equal.



The G-10 -14 will both do 585 km/h (363 mph) at SL and 685 km/h (426 mph) at full throttle height. Climb rate is in the 4,800 ft/min area.



> I don't have a lot of data on turn rate. I have seen a document from spitfireperformance, http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/wade-turning.jpg, that indicates the P-51 could outturn both the Fw-190 and Bf-109, but I know you have arguments here and it is not well defined in altitude and airspeed, so I would not use it to support any argument. I do have some test data performed in 1990 on roll rates, between the P-51, P-47, F6F and FG1 (F4U-1 without folding wings). These were performed without stressing the aircraft but does show a comparison. Test was done at 10k ft, 220kts. The P-51 rolled right at 53 degrees/sec, left at 55, the P-47 was 61 and 66, the F6F at 26 and 48, and the FG1 at 49 and 58. This indicates that the P-51 was in midst of some noted performers. It did not out roll a Fw-190 for sure, which was exceptional.



First of all the British hardly dared flying the 109, secondly the 190 to which they compared their own fighters was a Jabo, and even this Jabo managed to turn with the Tempest. The 109 gave a bad impression simply because as soon as the slats came out the british test pilot was sure the a/c was about to depart, aborting the maneuver completely - in truth it wasn't even close. 



> It was great because of range, numbers and because that it was no less than a formidable fighter after flying for four hours. I don't think you can find an operational German fighter on the front line that is faster from SL to 35k than a P-51B/D (maybe a D at 20k which seems at a low point in power but still make 420 mph) in mid 44. I can be convinced otherwise with data.



Even after flying 4 hours it was at a disadvantage in anything but speed against the dedicated fighter aircraft of the LW - the laminar flow wing which did help speed sadly also meant stalls at rather low AoA's. However what did all this matter when the enemy was lower than you and climbing to engage the bombers, they were rather easy pickings, and only the dedicated LW fighters gave up a truly hard fight - if they weren't shot down by stangs while still trying to gain alt ofcourse.



> Like I said, I don't think the P-51 is the greatest fighter. I don't think any aircraft can claim that title. There were others that did better in different environments. Certainly in the air-to-ground roles. But, overall it was an exceptional machine and did great in some areas and was acceptable in many others. In my mind it is like the T-34 tank. When it appeared, it dominated the battlefield and caused a scurry to counter and by the time the Germans could conteract it, they were appearing in hordes.



I can agree with that.



> I do think too much is made of the P-51 at the expense of the other great WWII aircraft (kind of like the common thought here that the U.S. won the war by itself) and service is provided to educate others on these aircraft. Sometimes, on the other hand, I think the P-51 is belittled because of that, and that is when I tend to jump to its defense.



The P-51 does get belittled sometimes, however nowhere near as much as it naively gets admired ! 

The P-51's success is in large part due to its numbers, and theres no getting around that, however at the time of its appearence speed was good and it remained decent until the end - and like they say, speed is life.



> I have corrected my data base, thanks. My 59 year old eyes have large plus-or-minus error on reading graphs.



Hehe, no problem, have the same problem sometimes when relying on memory alone


----------



## SpitfireKing (Jan 31, 2007)

Okay! *Raises white flag* I'm done, I'm done!


----------



## davparlr (Jan 31, 2007)

Soren said:


> I know of the test and it was achieved using 44-1 fuel, another test done 5 days later at 75" HG gave a max climb rate of 4,380 ft/min at a 9,300 lbs weight - max SL speed was 360 mph.
> 
> A test made in June 1944 shows a time to climb 20k of just over 6min at 75" HG: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/eglin-p51b-climb.jpg
> 
> ...




I don't have any problems with what you have stated here. The P-51 is a great aircraft that should be admired for what did but not worshiped for what it did not do.

*Classic Military Warning*

"A slipping trigger gear could let your M203 grenade launcher fire when you least expect it. That would make you quite unpopular in what's left of your unit." Army's Magazine of Preventive Maintenance.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 31, 2007)

Are you getting all thes Classic military warnings from the PM magazine? They are hilariously written.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 31, 2007)

any more examples 'cos that was pretty funny....


----------



## SpitfireKing (Jan 31, 2007)

Yeah, some more....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 31, 2007)

I have so many copies of those PM magazines here at home. They actually give good tips on preventive maintenace. They have a section in each magazine for all major branches of the Army from weapons mainteance to Hummers, to helicopters. 

I made a bunch of my special built tools that they they recommended to make my life easier when working on my bird in the field.


----------



## SpitfireKing (Jan 31, 2007)

Do they help?

Fighter Planes: P-51 Mustang


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 31, 2007)

Yeah because they are all usefull tips. They are all shown in a form of cartoons though.


----------



## SpitfireKing (Jan 31, 2007)

Ha ha, well, at least there in color.


----------



## davparlr (Jan 31, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Are you getting all thes Classic military warnings from the PM magazine? They are hilariously written.



I believe I got these from an e-mail. I have had them for quite awhile. Stay tuned for more.

*Classic Military Warnings*

"It is generally inadvisable to eject directly over the area you just bombed." U.S. Air Force Manual


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 1, 2007)

That one is classic.


----------



## SpitfireKing (Feb 1, 2007)

Well, it certainly makes sense.


----------



## Soren (Feb 1, 2007)

Davparlr, 

About the Me-262 and supersonic flight:
The Me262 and The Race to Mach1
The Story of my First Supcrsonic Flight on 9 April 1945 over Innsbruck

It seems quite certain that some pilots did go supersonic in the Me-262 - The Allies apparently hving done this after the war in th Me-262 as-well. However, it also seems rather clear that attempting to go supersonic in the Me-262 was extremely dangerous and would more likely end in distaster than not, the airframe wasn't designed to go supersonic.


----------



## davparlr (Feb 2, 2007)

Soren said:


> Davparlr,
> 
> About the Me-262 and supersonic flight:
> The Me262 and The Race to Mach1
> ...



I have several thoughts here. First, it would not be necessarily surprising that several non-supersonic jets exceeded the speed of sound. It is simple aerodynamics, thrust vs. drag, only drag increases significantly at high mach nos. The real problem is disruption of airflow at transonic speed and the associated control problems. Going supersonic is only a matter of adequate thrust, surviving was another issue. I suspect that there are a few aviators who died going faster than sound, and maybe a few who survived. Second, there is difficulty in accepting claims in uninstrument aircraft of exceeding the speed of sound. Most of the claims are based on two observations, first, instruments. Insturments are notably inaccurate at speeds near sound, and in general as they are typically not corrected for variables such as outside air temperature. The second is the indication of onset of control problems and then the cessation of control problems. These are the two the Me-262 pilot reported on.



> At this altitude of 12.000 m (36.000 ft) the aircraft began within a few seconds to vibrate, followed closely by a very strong buffeting which caused the tail to swing from side to side and the whole aircraft to oscillate due to the pressure waves. The airspeed indicator was against the stop at 1.100 km/h (682 rnph), the aircraft was no longer controllable and was vibrating so violently that it was not possible to read the instruments. A second later there was no longer any feeling of an aircraft through the stick which stayed in whatever position it was placed. Immediately following this the aircraft was suddenly again controllable although the altitude-compensated airspeed indicator remained on the stop at 1.100 krn/h (682 mph).



He uses the report of the X-1 of similar observations for justification.



> While the usual light buffet and instability characteristics were encountered in the .88-90 Mach range and elevator effectiveness was very greatly decreased at .94 Mach, stability about all three axes was good as speed increased and elevator effectiveness was regained above .97 Mach. As speed decreased after turning off the motor, the various phenomena occurred in reverse sequence at the usual speeds, and in addition, a slight longitudinal porpoising was noticed from .98-.96 Mach which (was) controllable by the elevators alone. Incidentally, the stabilizer setting was not changed from its 2 degrees nose down position after trial at .92 Mach



However, it seems here that the controllability was regained prior to achieving Mach 1,


> speed increased and elevator effectiveness was regained above .97 Mach


. So using these two observations, it appears that the report on achieving Mach 1 could be discredited. He did also refer to some Air Force documentation that supported his claim. These may be valid or based on the same observations at the German pilot. Now the ones where sonic booms were heard is a different story.

So, the only thing I guess I can really say is the the X-1 was probably the first aircraft to exceed the speed of sound and be properly instrumented and recorded. Other than that, I won't agree or deny anything.

My observations on going supersonic in a modern aircraft, the T-38. First, when in mil power (non-afterburning) the plane would nose up to the speed of sound obtaining .99 Mach in level flight, just not enough thrust in mil power to overcome the extra drag. No problem with the afterburner, however. Going down hill, it would easily exceed Mach 1 in less than mil power (we would get into trouble flying loose trail and not watch our Machmeter. It was a no-no to go through the sound barrier without approval). Second, it would slip through Mach 1 without a hitch. The only way you knew you were going supersonic was a slight dip in the airspeed indicator and 1 showing on the Machmeter. In flying formation supersonically, moving out and then in on the lead, the plane would rock like boat going over a wave, which is what it was doing.

The X-1 fuselage was based on a .50 cal. machine gun bullet because they knew that it went supersonic.

In the 1950s, a guy by the name of Kittingter went 614 mph, approaching the speed of sound, when he parachuted from a balloon at 102,800ft (31,333 meters).

*Classic Military Warnings*

"Try to look unimportant, they may be low on ammo." Infantryman's Journal


----------



## riseofnations (Feb 2, 2007)

in my opinion i strongly believe that the Me-262 was the best fighter. I dont know if the stats of the kills to losses ratio affects peoples opinions but sometimes stats dont show the full picture. For instance just because it was vulnerable in the landing and takeoff phase does it make it any less of a fighter? Of course not, as Allied aircraft were swarming in the skies. Also some bomber pilots were used (because of Hitlers obsession with using it in the bomber role) and as you can guess a bomber pilot is not as good as a fighter pilot in combat and those me-262s became easier to shoot down.

Famous Conflicts: World War Two Aircraft


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 2, 2007)

The 262 was more of a bomber destroyer than a pure fighter, and was plaqued with problems and difficulties that lasted till the end of the War....


----------



## davparlr (Feb 2, 2007)

Soren said:


> Davparlr,
> 
> About the Me-262 and supersonic flight:
> The Me262 and The Race to Mach1
> ...



I forgot to say that this was interesting reading. Also, the German pilot indicated that he trimmed the horizontal stabilizer. Do you know if the Me-262 did have a trimmable horizontal stabilizer verses a trimmable elevator, which was the current typical design? That would be very interesting.

*Classic Military Warnings*

"Tracers work both ways." U.S. Army Ordinance Manual


----------



## Soren (Feb 2, 2007)

Davparlr,

There's good reason Mutke would compare the Me-262 and X-1, remember the X-1 has straight wings while the Me-262 has swept wings and both have a tall mounted horizontal stabilizor.

Also insteresting is to note what is written in the USAAF POH for the Me-262.



lesofprimus said:


> The 262 was more of a bomber destroyer than a pure fighter, and was plaqued with problems and difficulties that lasted till the end of the War....



The armament bares the entire blaim, the low muzzle velocity of the rounds meant the Mk108 wasn't suited for fighter vs fighter combat - the Me-262 itself though was excellently suited for fighter vs fighter combat being capable of hairraisingly tight high speed turns, as-well as featuring featherlike control forces at high speeds.


----------



## davparlr (Feb 2, 2007)

Soren said:


> Davparlr,
> 
> There's good reason Mutke would compare the Me-262 and X-1, remember the X-1 has straight wings while the Me-262 has swept wings and both have a tall mounted horizontal stabilizor.
> 
> Also insteresting is to note what is written in the USAAF POH for the Me-262.



The reason that Mutke compared the Me-262 to the X-1 was primarily that the X-1 was certifiably a supersonic aircraft, yet had the same control characteristics that he experienced in Me-262 when going supersonic, collaborating his claim (which, I reasoned, did not).

By the way, what is POH?

*Classic Military Warnings*

"Five second fuses only last three seconds" Infantryman's Journal


----------



## dreadnought (Feb 4, 2007)

The Hawker Tempest, although slightly unreliable, is probably my favourite single engine piston engined fighter of ww2 and my reasons for this are these:
It was highly manouverable at all altitudes, very fast (up to 440 in level flight), rugged, effective in many rolesand packed a heavy punch with 4 20mm cannon + rockets or up to 2000lbs of bombs. both of these quotes are on The Hawker Tempest Page. take a look at the site



"Reaching Newchurch airfield at 480 mph I held "RB" down to 20 ft from the runway and then pulled her up to a 60 ° climb holding it as the speed dropped slowly off and the altimeter needle spun round the dial as if it were mad. At 7000 ft the speed was dropping below 180 mph and I rolled the Tempest lazily inverted, then allowed the nose to drop until the horizon, at first above my head, disappeared below (or rather above) the now inverted nose, the fields and woods steadied into the centre of the windscreen and then whirled around as I put the stick hard over and rolled around the vertical dive. Steadying again I pulled out over the tree tops at 500 mph, throttled back and pulled hard over towards the airfield in an over-the-vertical climbing turn, lowering the wheels and flaps in a roll as the speed dropped. What a magnificent aeroplane! They could have all their Spitfires and Mustangs!"
("My part of the sky", Roland Beamont)



"The Messerschmitt Me 262's most dangerous opponent was the British Hawker Tempest - extremely fast at low altitudes, highly-manoeuvrable and heavily-armed."
(Hubert Lange, Me262 pilot)


----------



## Soren (Feb 5, 2007)

Davparlr,

The POH is the Pilots Operating Handbook.


----------



## davparlr (Feb 5, 2007)

Soren said:


> Davparlr,
> 
> The POH is the Pilots Operating Handbook.



Thanks, I'll try to remember that. All we knew it as was the Dash-1.

*Classic Military Warnings*

An old one but still wise.

"Never tell the Platoon Sergeant you have nothing to do" Unknown Marine recruit


----------



## davparlr (Feb 5, 2007)

dreadnought said:


> The Hawker Tempest, although slightly unreliable, is probably my favourite single engine piston engined fighter of ww2 and my reasons for this are these:
> It was highly manouverable at all altitudes, very fast (up to 440 in level flight), rugged, effective in many rolesand packed a heavy punch with 4 20mm cannon + rockets or up to 2000lbs of bombs. both of these quotes are on The Hawker Tempest Page. take a look at the site




The Tempest V was similar to performance with the P-51D and bit slower than the P-51B, especially at higher altitudes (but probably better maneuverability). The quote is probably for the Tempest II, which was a superb low to medium altitudes (below 20-25k) fighter. Above that, there were better contemporary aircraft like the F4U-4, which had similar speed but much better climb at almost all levels. I'm not sure either versions could make 44k ft. They weren't really designed for it.

*Classic Military Warnings*

"Don't draw fire; it irritates the people around you." Your Buddies


----------



## SpitfireKing (Feb 7, 2007)

davparlr said:


> Thanks, I'll try to remember that. All we knew it as was the Dash-1.
> 
> *Classic Military Warnings*
> 
> ...



Yeah, that's true.


----------



## Civettone (Feb 7, 2007)

Soren said:


> The armament bares the entire blaim, the low muzzle velocity of the rounds meant the Mk108 wasn't suited for fighter vs fighter combat


I disagree. Aren't most fighter vs fighter engagements fought at close range? Isn't it more important to have a high MV when engaging enemy bombers so you can hit the target while staying away from their defensive guns?

Kris


----------



## Jank (Feb 7, 2007)

The purpose of high velocity in the context of explosive rounds is to reduce time of flight. 

There are two variables involved in time of flight. (1) distance (2) velocity

You lead your target based on where you estimate it will be when the anticipated distance is closed.

If the distance is such that the flight time is .75 seconds, that means your target has .75 seconds from the moment you pull the trigger to reorient his flight path or there will be a connection. If the velocity is lower, the time of flight might be an extra .25 second which can make a big difference when your target is attempting to evade.

Bombers don't engage in very effective evasive manuevering and thus time of flight is not as important. Destructive impact is, however, very important as you are talking about multi-engined aircraft that can take a lot more hits than a fighter. It just so happens that a heavy projectile like that of the Mk. 108 requires too much case capacity and has too much recoil to increase it's velocity to that of a higher velocity 20mm or .50 cal. and it's destructive ability is achieved without high velocity.


----------



## Civettone (Feb 8, 2007)

What differences are we talking about here? If the MK 108 shell takes 0.5 second to cross 250 meters than the MG 151 shell takes 0.35 seconds. Yeah, that's gonna make the difference! 

Kris


----------



## Jank (Feb 8, 2007)

"_What differences are we talking about here?_"

Well, it cuts down on the distance you must lead your target and forces your opponent to react faster. To use your example of a .15 second difference, that can easily be the difference between your engine taking a hit or the round striking two feet further away for a clean miss. I can't give you time to distance figures as it depends on the shape of the cartridge, sectional density and starting velocity. That being said, I have read that the time of flight for the US M.50 is .62 seconds to 500 yards.

I can tell you that as for starting velocity, I have seen the following figures listed for the Mk. II Hispano and Mk. 108. (From Tony Williams' website)

ANTI-TANK AND HEAVY MACHINE GUN CARTRIDGES UP TO 19 MM CALIBRE
30 MM CALIBRE CARTRIDGES

Hispano Mk. II - 880 m/s
Mk. 108 - 505 m/s.

If we accept the above, we can see that right out of the gate, the 20mm is 74% faster than the 30mm.

Perhaps someone will have actual time to distance figures for us to chew on.


----------



## Soren (Feb 8, 2007)

A slight difference in time of flight doesn't mean much if its reaction time we're talking about, cause nomatter how quick you can't dodge a bullet which is already sent your way - however in fighter vs fighter combat a lower MV means you need higher deflections in order to obtain a hit, and this can prve a problem. 

Ofcourse the MK-108 wasn't useless as a fighter vs fighter armament, all you needed was to land one hit, but it wasn't ideal either. And I think had Hitler allowed it to be used as a fighter frm the start as it was intended the armament would've changed from four Mk-108's to maybe four MG-151/20 or the high velocity 15mm MG-151 which was idea for the role.


----------



## Jank (Feb 8, 2007)

"_A slight difference in time of flight doesn't mean much if its reaction time we're talking about_"

Agreed. I don't think anyone was talking about reaction time though. Reaction time would be the lapse in time between first perceiving a threat and actually moving a flight control in evasive response thereto. Moreover, any lag in the aircraft's orientation after moving the flight control would need to be factored in as well.

For example, let's say a chase pilot fires based on where he anticipates the lead plane will be when the cannon round closes the distance. If the lead pilot tries to react only after perceiving the chase pilot's firing (reaction time), then as you said, it would be difficult to see how he would be able to escape. 

If, however, a lead pilot is just doing his darndest to outmanuever a chase pilot, the lead pilot could apply force on his controls the tiniest moment after a cannon round is fired as a result of a decision to do so before the cannon round was fired and as a result, not be hit as a result of the movement of the aircraft during the 1/3 or 1/2 second time of flight for the projectile. Extending the time of flight even .15 seconds potentially could result in right angle movement of a few or even several feet and result in a miss where otherwise, there would be a hit. Obviously, if the extended flight time were 1/3 of a second ... (you get the point).

As a result, we have both errors of lead distance and unanticipated movement after firing that come into play as a result of a longer time of flight due to slow velocity along the flight path.


----------



## SpitfireKing (Feb 9, 2007)

Sorry If I'm a bit lost.... So what's the topic now?


----------



## Jank (Feb 9, 2007)

Go back and read through the prior 14 posts - starting with Soren's comment that,"_The armament bares the entire blaim, the low muzzle velocity of the rounds meant the Mk108 wasn't suited for fighter vs fighter combat._"

This lead to a discussion about MV.


----------



## Wespe (Feb 14, 2007)

Hi guys, as you can see I am new on this forum

Well to change from four Mk-108's to maybe four MG-151/20 or the high velocity 15mm MG-151, wouldn't have been a problem, if the Lw would have decided so.

As for my believe the best piston engined fighter in WWII was the F4U-4
the best fighter overall Me-262


----------



## Soren (Feb 14, 2007)

Welcome Wespe.

And about MV and its importance in fighter vs fighter combat, well as both me and Jank have explained a lower MV means higher deflections, which can prove a problem because the longer the distance the higher the deflection you will need. And depending on the MV of the round, if its too low you might not be able to see your target.


----------



## Wespe (Feb 14, 2007)

Hi Soren, thanks for the welcome

Just as I said, if the MG-151/20 or the high velocity 15mm MG-151, would have been better, no problem the Lw could have changed it any time. 
But sitting in a plane and being straffed by 4x30mm from 150-300m, if in target the guy would be a goner anyway. Indeed the 262 was supposed to be fitted with MG-151/20 but I think it was Hitler who wanted the 30mm.
But besides this american comment, (They had to pick on something  I never came across any news of a Lw pilot referring to this as a problem in respect to the Me-262. Probably they were so delighted about this awesome plane, that they couldn’t be bothered about high or low velocities.

"Long live the Me-262"


----------



## SpitfireKing (Feb 14, 2007)

Hello Wespe. I won't be contributing to this thread much, considering that's not a topic I know well. Enjoy.


----------



## Wespe (Feb 14, 2007)

Hi SpitfireKing

well, do you need to be an expert to forward your favorite plane in this thread?

Since you display a Spit as your avatar; please feel free to say: I would say the best plane was a S......... .
And I could say;  nooooo way, and there goes the discussion


----------



## Civettone (Feb 14, 2007)

Again on the MK 108, I think it also depends on the way you fight your battles. If you get in close, the MK 108 is the best there is. 

But let's use the example of a dogfight at where the enemy aircraft makes a violent evasive manoeuvre and the German aircraft is forced to use deflection. I don't know what it will mean but here goes...
If the aircraft flies at 150 m/s the MK 108 shell will leave at a speed of 650 m/s. A MG 151/20 at 875 m/s. 
Let's say the target is 325m away it will take the shell half a second to get there. However, in that half second the target will be 75m further away, so that's another 0.1sec, and in that fraction the aircraft is yet again a bit further, but in any case, it will probably be less than 0.65 of a second. In comparison the MG 151/20 can do 325m in 0.37sec and will catch the enemy in 0.45 sec. So that's 2/3 of the time for the MK 108. 

But with a banking aircraft the German aircraft will approach the enemy aircraft faster than in a straight-ahead-tailchase. So then the target will move away at a speed of for instance 100 m/s instead of a 150. Then the MK would reach the target in 0.55 seconds and the MG in 0.43 seconds. 

If we half the distance (so 162 m) the difference between both scenarios becomes even less and will be around 0.3 seconds for the MK and 0.2 seconds for the MG. 

I concur that even the smallest difference could result in defeat or victory. So then it comes down to the range you shoot down aircraft. German doctrine stressed short distance and the best German pilots preferred to get close to their target ... though there are exceptions. 
And then there's also the matter of when the enemy aircraft will break away. If it breaks away at 325 meters, the German aircraft has sufficient time to react and get on its tail again while a fighter breaking at a closer distance has more chance of getting away though of course he would also have a longer exposure time. But in both cases, there is relatively little reason to shoot at the enemy fighter 325 meters away. 

So overall, given the obvious advantage of the MK 108 in destructive power I don't see any reason why I would ever use the MG 151 when I can go for the MK. In any case, I will never agree that the MK 108 wasn't suited for fighter vs fighter combat.

Kris


----------



## Wespe (Feb 15, 2007)

Civettone said:


> Again on the MK 108, I think it also depends on the way you fight your battles. If you get in close, the MK 108 is the best there is.
> 
> But let's use the example of a dogfight at where the enemy aircraft makes a violent evasive manoeuvre and the German aircraft is forced to use deflection. I don't know what it will mean but here goes...
> If the aircraft flies at 150 m/s the MK 108 shell will leave at a speed of 650 m/s. A MG 151/20 at 875 m/s.
> ...




Great, so we both agree that the MK 108 wasn't a problem to the Lw pilots flying the 262. Just pure American envy on the worlds best plane


----------



## SpitfireKing (Feb 15, 2007)

Wel, I've already got shot a million time by everyone. So I kinda fell back. I'm just waiting for an oppotune moment to strike.


----------



## Wespe (Feb 15, 2007)

SpitfireKing said:


> Wel, I've already got shot a million time by everyone. So I kinda fell back. I'm just waiting for an oppotune moment to strike.



Thanks for the warning, I will keep my head down, when you start to unleash the qualities of the Spitfire  

Wespe


----------



## Civettone (Feb 15, 2007)

Also rare to see an American praising the Spit.


Kris


----------



## Wespe (Feb 16, 2007)

Hey guy's seen that one before?


----------



## Burador (Feb 17, 2007)

Hi everybody! I just joined in today. The Mk-108 cannon has a low muzzle velocity, in my opinion that translates to short range and therefore the Luftwaffe pilots would have had to get closer to their target in order to land some hits. As far as I know, the Mk-108 is a 30-mm gun or cannon and it should have been very devastating against the fellow at the business end of its barrel. But like I stated the Lw pilots would have to get real close to hit their target. Maybe a 20-mm cannon through the propeller hub and two 15-mm MG-151 machine guns in the engine cowling of a Bf-109 would have been better. What do you think?


----------



## Wespe (Feb 18, 2007)

Hi Burador,

welcome to the forum, Like I said in an earlier thread, if a plane gets hit by 30mm the fellow is a gonner anyway. Theoreticaly you might be right, but if you check on YouTube - Broadcast Yourself. - M2-262 against B17 you can see how these 30mm projectiles make mincemeat out of a target being hit.

Wespe


----------



## Burador (Feb 18, 2007)

Wespe said:


> Hi Burador,
> 
> welcome to the forum, Like I said in an earlier thread, if a plane gets hit by 30mm the fellow is a gonner anyway. Theoreticaly you might be right, but if you check on YouTube - Broadcast Yourself. - M2-262 against B17 you can see how these 30mm projectiles make mincemeat out of a target being hit.
> 
> Wespe



Most of the time it takes more than one 30-mm shell to down even a light enemy fighter. With the low-velocity MK-108 cannon the Lw pilot has a problem of pursuing in order to close the distance and knocking out an opposing fighter. Having an MK-108 cannon against the B-17's is alright but it is a different matter when dealing with opposing fighters in a dogfight. By the way, I think Rheinmetall-Borsig came out with a high-velocity 30-mm cannon with a different designation. But I also think it was reported that the cannon produced unacceptable vibrations in a Bf-109. Was this cannon successful in an Me-262?


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 18, 2007)

Burador, one hit from a HE/AP 30mm round from the Mk108 was indeed enough to take down any single engine aircraft, and most of the 2 engined jobs as well... Documented proof...


----------



## Burador (Feb 18, 2007)

lesofprimus said:


> Burador, one hit from a HE/AP 30mm round from the Mk108 was indeed enough to take down any single engine aircraft, and most of the 2 engined jobs as well... Documented proof...



Lesofprimus, I'd like to see that proof.


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 18, 2007)

Read Luftwaffe Aces by Stackpole and History of JG300 Vol 1 by Lorat, both of which describe pilot accounts of a single 30mm disintegrating an enemy fighter...


----------



## Soren (Feb 18, 2007)

A single 30mm minen geschoss would easily rip the wing off any single engined fighter, even the P-47.

Here's what a hit from a 30mm Minen Geschoss looks like:


----------



## Hop (Feb 18, 2007)

> Burador, one hit from a HE/AP 30mm round from the Mk108 was indeed enough to take down any single engine aircraft, and most of the 2 engined jobs as well... Documented proof...



One hit from a .303 was enough to take down any fighter or bomber, too. However, you need a lot more on average.

A single 30mm could bring down any aircraft if it hit in the right place, but a glancing blow, a hit in a wing tip, an explosion in an elevator or rudder, detonation on the surface, a faulty fuse, hit on the wheel well, etc, etc, could all enable a fighter to survive a hit from a 30mm.

The average number of 30 mm hits to down even a single engined fighter is certainly greater than 1.0, probably more in the order of 2.


----------



## Soren (Feb 18, 2007)

A single 9mm Parabellum round will also bring down any single seat fighter or bomber, oh yes.. 

Hop, you've got to be kidding me !

A 30mm HE(M) shot would normally rip a fighter to pieces and severely damage any bomber, and a 20mm HE(M) shot would usually severely cripple a fighter and leave damage like this on a bomber:














A rifle bullet can't be compared to this...


----------



## Civettone (Feb 18, 2007)

I can see a big bomber survive one or even two MK 108 impacts but a fighter? No matter where, the damage would be sufficient to bring it down. The difference between the two is that a B-17 (for instance) has more non-essential areas. But a fighter or even a Shturmovik is dead meat when hit by a MK 108 greeting card.

Kris


----------



## Hop (Feb 18, 2007)

> A single 9mm Parabellum round will also bring down any single seat fighter or bomber, oh yes..
> 
> Hop, you've got to be kidding me !



No, not at all.

A single round of rifle calibre or above _can_ bring down an aircraft. Passing through the pilot's head would be a good example.

That doesn't mean a single round will always bring down an aircraft, or even usually do so.

This statement is ambiguous:


> Burador, one hit from a HE/AP 30mm round from the Mk108 was indeed enough to take down any single engine aircraft,



Does it mean a single round of 30mm _can_ bring down a fighter? Well, the same is true of .303

Does it mean a single round will usually bring down a fighter? That's certainly not true of .303, but no evidence is offered it's true of 30mm, either.

Does it mean a single round will _always_ bring down a fighter? That's patently untrue for _any_ round, even an 88.



> A 30mm HE(M) shot would normally rip a fighter to pieces



In the right place, it's certainly true. In the wrong place, it's not true. On average, your are going to need more than 1 hit for a kill.


----------



## Soren (Feb 19, 2007)

Hop, a bomber is usually controlled by more than one pilot, so unless the rifle bullet passes through both pilot's heads its not going to bring down the aircraft. I think we can agree this is not a possibility ?



> In the right place, it's certainly true. In the wrong place, it's not true. On average, your are going to need more than 1 hit for a kill



Exactly which spot on any WW2 fighter is the wrong place for a 30mm HE(M) projectile ? A hit to the fuselage and it breaks in two, a hit to the wing and it tears right off, a hit to the center of the fighter and the pilot is either dead or in such bad shape he can't fly the a/c anymore or the a/c is rendered a flying brick.

Its highly likely, for the 30mm HE(M) round atleast, that each hit obtained by ths weapon on an enemy fighter spelled the emediate doom of it.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 19, 2007)

While I agree that a 30mm was eneogh to bring down most aircraft. I also agree that technically a single 9mm or even a .303 was eneogh to if it is a lucky shot.

Granted this is off topic but I have seen a single 7.62mm round bring down an aircraft.


----------



## Soren (Feb 19, 2007)

A fighter yes, but not a bomber.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 19, 2007)

No technically a single small round can jam flight controls and render the aircraft un controllable. I have actually scene a spent casing jam flight controls and bring an aircraft down and kill people.

Again this is all highly unlikely but it is possible.


----------



## Soren (Feb 19, 2007)

I seriously doubt a .303 can jam the controls of a bomber.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 20, 2007)

Trust me you would be surprised. Just the smallest fragments of anything can get stuck in flight controls, flight control rods, servos, and anything else you can think of and jam controls.

We call it FOD in the aviation world. Foreign Object Damage.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 20, 2007)

Soren said:


> I seriously doubt a .303 can jam the controls of a bomber.


A misplaced pulley guide pin caused the entire failure of a P-3 elevator trim system - the aircraft pitched up about 60 degrees before the crew got it under control. I seen this when I was working at Lockheed Burbank back in 1980. Adler is right on the money - you'd be surprised what the smallest or seeming insignificant FOD could do to an aircraft.


----------



## Wespe (Feb 20, 2007)

So the best fighter?

Still the Me-262 ??? "Unstoppable King of the Air" ???
Or what is the "contribution" criteria for this question ?
Wespe


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 20, 2007)

No I dont think the Me-262 was the best fighter. Especially not because you keep hounding on it so much.

In order for an aircraft to even be considered the best it needs to have engines that are not only good for 10 to 50 (on the upper most top side) hours before they need to be replaced or componants replaced in it. The construction has to use similiar metals.

Was it a great fighter yes! But it was too little too late and it would have been better suited to put all that material into Fw-190s, Ta-152s and Bf-109s with which you could fight the war and make more of.

I go with the Ta-152.


----------



## Wespe (Feb 20, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> No I dont think the Me-262 was the best fighter. Especially not because you keep hounding on it so much.
> 
> In order for an aircraft to even be considered the best it needs to have engines that are not only good for 10 to 50 (on the upper most top side) hours before they need to be replaced or componants replaced in it. The construction has to use similiar metals.
> 
> ...



Barley 70 produced planes (less than 20 in action) how can this support a claim to being the best aircraft ?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 20, 2007)

The Me-262 certainly can not be the best aircraft. It had crappy engines. It was made of disimmiliar metals. Construction was poor.

Oh ghastly Wespe did you see what I wrote there!!!! It must be Allied Propoganda!!!!

*And since you think you are funny and wanna talk about contributions. It had no contribution to winning a war so therefore its outa here...*


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 20, 2007)

Wespe said:


> Barley 70 produced planes (less than 20 in action) how can this support a claim to being the best aircraft ?



How can you support an aircraft that had shitty engines and could perform in 3 different roles as the most versatile aircraft?


----------



## Wespe (Feb 20, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> How can you support an aircraft that had shitty engines and could perform in 3 different roles as the most versatile aircraft?



5 Roles, 5 Roles, not 3

Fighter
Ground attack
Nightfighter
Trainer
Recon

Anyway I thought that we had already agreed on the A-26 as the best and most versitile a/c. 
You See I do not have a problem to vote for an American plane, same goes for the B-29, SO WHAT MOOOOORE DO YOU YANKS WANT???

I wont give you the fighter "NEVER"


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 20, 2007)

Wespe said:


> 5 Roles, 5 Roles, not 3
> 
> Fighter
> Ground attack
> ...



That is still is not a lot.



Wespe said:


> Anyway I thought that we had already agreed on the A-26 as the best and most versitile a/c.



No I never agreed with you. I dont ask you to agree with me either, you dont have to agree with me. I think the most versatile was the Ju-88. 

All I said was that the A-26 was a great aircraft and beautiful.



Wespe said:


> You See I do not have a problem to vote for an American plane, same goes for the B-29, SO WHAT MOOOOORE DO YOU YANKS WANT???



We allready discussed the Yank thing in another thread. When another members requests you not to refre to them as something you kindly do that. This is the 2nd time now. Once more you get an official warning.

I am very proud of my American ancestory as well as I am very proud of my German ancestory. So again for the last time you will refer to me as my handle not as Yank...



Wespe said:


> I wont give you the fighter "NEVER"



Again your opinion, you are allowed to have it.


----------



## Wespe (Feb 20, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> That is still is not a lot.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Refer to you as what?
Quote: you will refer to me as my handle


----------



## Civettone (Feb 20, 2007)

His handle is 'DerAdlerIstGelandet' (though I suppose you can also call him 'Der Crewchief').
Or you can call him 'Adler' like I do. (saves time )

Kris


----------



## mkloby (Feb 20, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Trust me you would be surprised. Just the smallest fragments of anything can get stuck in flight controls, flight control rods, servos, and anything else you can think of and jam controls.
> 
> We call it FOD in the aviation world. Foreign Object Damage.



Gotta love some of the acronyms. I can't believe that there's TFOA - things falling off aircraft. that one blows my mind. It's even in NATOPS! Does that army use that one?

While we're still stuck on the 262 - does anyone have a good site with detailed information on the turbojets, as far as design and contruction goes?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 21, 2007)

mkloby said:


> Gotta love some of the acronyms. I can't believe that there's TFOA - things falling off aircraft. that one blows my mind. It's even in NATOPS! Does that army use that one?
> 
> While we're still stuck on the 262 - does anyone have a good site with detailed information on the turbojets, as far as design and contruction goes?



You know I dont actually recall hearing that one. It would not surprise me if it was used as well though.


----------



## Gnomey (Feb 21, 2007)

@mkloby

General history here: History of the Messerschmitt Me 262

Jumo 004: Junkers Engines - Jumo 004 and Junkers Jumo 004 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

BMW 003: BMW 003 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (never fitted though)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 21, 2007)

mkloby said:


> Gotta love some of the acronyms. I can't believe that there's TFOA - things falling off aircraft. that one blows my mind. It's even in NATOPS! Does that army use that one?
> 
> While we're still stuck on the 262 - does anyone have a good site with detailed information on the turbojets, as far as design and contruction goes?



Actually fill out a TFOA report when one of the DC-130s I was involved with dropped a chain from the wheel well during take off. The aircraft's Crew chief (Plane captain) left it there when he untied the aircraft and forgot about it. 

The USAFA has a huge DOPP (Dropped Object Prevention Program). There, the worse we see is an ELT antenna coming off or a plastic window vent from the gliders dislodging.

Turbine engine construction? Try this....

GAS TURBINE ENGINE TYPES AND CONSTRUCTION


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 21, 2007)

Oh yeah I know that now. My buddy was landing into Balad in Iraq and dropped all his ammo on the runway. They had to fill out a lot of paperwork. Closed the runway down for a while because of FOD and ofcourse pissed off an Airforce C-5 Pilot because he had to hold because he could not land on the runway now!


----------



## mkloby (Feb 21, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Actually fill out a TFOA report when one of the DC-130s I was involved with dropped a chain from the wheel well during take off. The aircraft's Crew chief (Plane captain) left it there when he untied the aircraft and forgot about it.
> 
> The USAFA has a huge DOPP (Dropped Object Prevention Program). There, the worse we see is an ELT antenna coming off or a plastic window vent from the gliders dislodging.
> 
> ...



ELT's falling off??? Geez.

Thanks for the link. I meant for specifics on the jumo turbojets  

Gnomey - I'll try those out!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 21, 2007)

mkloby said:


> ELT's falling off??? Geez.
> 
> Thanks for the link. I meant for specifics on the jumo turbojets
> 
> Gnomey - I'll try those out!


Not the whole ELT - just the antenna...


----------



## mkloby (Feb 21, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Not the whole ELT - just the antenna...



Of course - they can cause some serious damage if ingested...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 21, 2007)

mkloby said:


> Of course - they can cause some serious damage if ingested...


Yep! And you know we have to do FOD walks for the Cessna T-41s, T-51s and Gliders that operate there too - ya never know when one of them are going to suck up something!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 21, 2007)

We used to have to FOD walk the whole damn airfield! That **** sucked but it was neccessary.


----------



## davparlr (Feb 25, 2007)

No aircraft can be considered the best with the reliability of the Me-262.

As for lethality of weapons, that can be solved by mathematics (not that I did it). 

Pk = Ph x Pf where

Pk is the probability of kill.

Ph is the probability of hit.

Pf is the probability of fatal hit.

In English, the probability of a kill is the probability of a hit given the probability of a fatal hit. Let’s make this simple. Say the probability of a single hit by a 30mm round is fatal 70% of the time. The hit by a .50 cal. is fatal 20% of the time. Now let’s say that the probability of a hit by a single 30mm round is 1%, and the probability of a hit of a single .50 cal round is 2% (higher muzzle velocity). Then, for a single round, the probability of a kill for a 30mm would be .7 % (70% x 1%) or .007, for the .50 cal, it would be .4% (20% x 2%) or .004.

Now, this needs to be calculated over time. Let’s assume a one half second burst. For the 30mm, that would be 5 rounds, for a .50 cal that would be 6 rounds. Total amount of rounds fired by a Me-262 would be 20 (4 x 5). For a P-51D, it would be 36 (6 x 6). For a P-47D, it would be 48 (8 x 6). This is based on a rate of fire for the 30mm at 650 rpm, and 750 rpm for the .50 cal. And counting four guns for the Me-262, six for the P-51D, and eight for the P-47D.

Sooo, using the arcane rules of probability, the probability of a kill by the Me-262 with a one half second burst is 1-(1- .007)20 or 13.1%. For the P-51D, the probability is 13.4%. For a P-47D, the probability is 17.5%. It is clear from this example that more smaller guns are better than fewer bigger guns. However, if I changed the variables of probability of fatal hit, this would change to the other way round.

Now, you cannot use any of this a proof in any way. It is all made up. I don’t know the probability of a fatal hit by 30mm or a .50 cal. Even the probability calculation is suspect (I couldn’t find my probability book, so I had to create the formula. I think it is right), But it does show you the complexity of what you are arguing and, also, if you had the correct numbers for probability of fatal hit and probability of hit (a function, I am sure, of maneuvering, muzzle velocity, and range), you could actually prove which configuration is best. And, most likely, this was done and the weapons were chosen for optimizing the specific configuration for the mission. 

Any way, arguing without data is running around in circles. But then, we’re good at that!


----------



## pbfoot (Feb 25, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> We used to have to FOD walk the whole damn airfield! That **** sucked but it was neccessary.


It was fun to watch from my perch almost as good as getting the MPs to chase dogs or deer off rwy


----------



## Parmigiano (Feb 26, 2007)

Davparlr,
your points are logically sustainable but this work from Tony Williams comes to a completely different conclusion:

CANNON OR MACHINE GUN

WORLD WAR 2 FIGHTER GUN EFFECTIVENESS

IDEAL WW2 FIGHTER ARMAMENT

.. so the debate is open !


----------



## davparlr (Feb 26, 2007)

Parmigiano said:


> Davparlr,
> your points are logically sustainable but this work from Tony Williams comes to a completely different conclusion:
> 
> CANNON OR MACHINE GUN
> ...



You are confusing me with someone with logic.  I didn't mean to make an argument. I only wanted to point out that this is an engineering problem. By understanding the variables such as circular error probability, aim point range, gunsight error, round lethality on desired target, etc. an engineer can calculated the gun configuration needed to have a 90% kill probability against a specific manuervering or non-maneuvering target with a given burst time.

It's kinda like selecting a type of ammo and gun you would use when you go hunting. Birdshot is best against small birds because it has a high probability of hitting and taking down a lightly armored bird, but you would want something heavier against a deer, but your probability of a hit is reduced.

I'll go to the website and see what he uses for logic. I am sure I won't have a problem.


----------



## Parmigiano (Feb 26, 2007)

You got my bluff... I've heard yesterday the word 'logic' in TV and wanted to impress everybody with my culture...  

well, cannon vs machine gun like non-synchro wing mounted vs nose mounted (either synchro or engine) are a long time arguments, and there are pro and cons for both. 
Since historically there was no standardization, probably the overall effectiveness was similar and decisions were made based on 'philosophy' or other considerations. 
Except maybe the FW190 where, just to stay on the safe side, they fitted a full catalog of cannons and MGs, wing and/or nose mounted.


----------



## davparlr (Feb 26, 2007)

I read the articles and generally agree with his argument. The .50 cal was used effectively by the Americans because their targets tended to be relatively lightly armored, e.g., fighters. It is interesting to note that in the 1944 Report of Joint Fighter Conference, that the issue was raised on whether the US should switch to 20mm guns. The the discussion was simple and straight forward, the .50 cals were sufficient for tasks assigned. No raves, just did the job. This conference included a lot of Navy guys, too.

He tended to be knowledgable but showed little engineering study but referenced some.


----------



## Civettone (Feb 26, 2007)

> You got my bluff... I've heard yesterday the word 'logic' in TV and wanted to impress everybody with my culture...


   


Kris


----------



## davparlr (Feb 27, 2007)

I don't know where to put this and I didn't watch it, slow modem, but I suspect you guys would like to see it an weep. Let me know if it is any good.
I think it took place in Phoenix.

Pilot Bails Out of Burning Plane During Air Race-Kevin Eldridge:Corsair kbvp.com - Google Video


----------



## renrich (Mar 4, 2007)

I think that was the Super Corsair. I saw it race one time near Denton, Texas and have photos of it. It had a R3350 engine and I believe it was the last Corsair racing. Obviously it won't be racing anymore.


----------



## davparlr (Mar 5, 2007)

It is always sad when a historic item is lost. Unfortunately, the debate on whether we should save these or use them is unwinnable. Some day we may not have any to fly or look at. Tis a puzzlement.


----------



## renrich (Mar 6, 2007)

You are so right. Luckily or unluckily most of us that revere those old warbirds perhaps because of the warbirds ages and our ages being somewhat tangential will be gone when the prop warbirds are no longer flying. I remember a book I was given as a child and one of the pictures within was a Corsair which the caption raved about except that the picture (in color) was the XF4U so the airplane was just barely in production. The airplane was silver with yellow wings.


----------



## ohka345 (Mar 10, 2007)

I love the focke-wulf Dora-9 too!


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 10, 2007)

So do I, but u posted a pic of the vaunted Ta 152C.... Not very knowledgeable in this area, are u???


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 11, 2007)

Oh boy...


----------



## ohka345 (Mar 11, 2007)

Well..what I do know is that the first ta 152 had mixed parts from fw190s and dora-9s.I don't think a lot ever got into service...


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 11, 2007)

> the first ta 152 had mixed parts from fw190s and dora-9s.


Huh??? A Dora-9 is an Fw 190...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 11, 2007)

You need to do some reading kid...


----------



## Russell Means (Mar 11, 2007)

Careful ohka345, you could get banned for such mistakes


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 12, 2007)

Why would he get banned. Dont be childish like that Russell. I also believe that I sent you a PM a few days ago that you need to respond to. If you do not respond to the pm that might just get you a ban...


----------



## Soren (Mar 12, 2007)

Ohka might have meant Antons and Dora's..

Anyway the parts used to built the Ta-152's were mostly unique to this a/c, not many parts were used from the FW-190 without modification - Canopy and cockpit were of such parts.


----------



## machine shop tom (Apr 16, 2007)

Personally, I prefer the P47, but I know there were better fighters in many senses.......

But, everything else being (relatively) equal, the aircraft with the better pilot and/or starting postion would have the upper hand. Early wartime Japanese and German pilots were far and away the most experienced and best trained pilots flying, with the exception of the AVG, many of the British fighter command and a few others. But as the war progressed and the better pilots of the Axis (not ALL of them, of course) were whittled down, the remainder had to deal not only with improving allied planes, but also with improved pilots and tactics. So we not only have the 190 Doras vs the Spitfires and Mustangs, we have more experienced allied pilots combatting progressively greener Luftwaffe pilots (generally). The same thing was happening in the Pacific. If became less a comparison of planes than pilots.

tom


----------



## Civettone (Apr 17, 2007)

Hey, this just occured to me. Wouldn't the Italian and Russian fighter pilots be the most experienced ones in Europe around 1940??

Kris


----------



## Gnomey (Apr 17, 2007)

No. The Germans would have had the experience from Spain and Poland and so would still have the most experience followed by the Russians and Italians...


----------



## Civettone (Apr 17, 2007)

Yeah, I should have said "the beginning of the war" instead of "1940" as WW2 started on different dates for the various countries.

Of course the Germans were also fighting in Spain but only few compared to the Italians. And when the war started for the Russians their pilots had already fought in Spain, Mongolia and Finland.

Kris


----------



## amrit (Apr 17, 2007)

Gnomey said:


> No. The Germans would have had the experience from Spain and Poland and so would still have the most experience followed by the Russians and Italians...



I think the Finns would probably have been more experienced than the Russians - Russian losses were so high that many Russians couldn't use their experiences or pass them on.


----------



## Civettone (Apr 17, 2007)

Yeah that makes sense.

As the Finnish were also the best trained and had the best tactics they must have been formidable adversaries.
Kris


----------



## drgondog (Jun 1, 2007)

davparlr said:


> I read the articles and generally agree with his argument. The .50 cal was used effectively by the Americans because their targets tended to be relatively lightly armored, e.g., fighters. It is interesting to note that in the 1944 Report of Joint Fighter Conference, that the issue was raised on whether the US should switch to 20mm guns. The the discussion was simple and straight forward, the .50 cals were sufficient for tasks assigned. No raves, just did the job. This conference included a lot of Navy guys, too.



Korea ended up being a 'revelation when a lot of MiG 15's limped off because 50 cal API wasn't lighting any fires at 40,000 feet. The USAF wasn't expecting the fight to be 'up there'.

I was actually a 6-8 year old kid listening to pilots in our living room (and bar)rotating back from Korea at Eglin - all of them (USAF types) begging for 20mm in 86's. I used to have 50 inert rounds of the experimental .60 cal also tested at Eglin - which was just big enough to stuff a reliable explosive round.

And - off topic - it took a fire bombing internal USAF terrorist by the name of John Boyd to show the brass why our fighters were getting whipped by Soviet Bloc dogfighters (and continue forward if unchanged) based on better Energy ACM because we tried to make every fighter a cheetah that had inertia like an elephant...and conserved energy like whales.

I wonder what the next great revelation will be? 

My guess is that the radar and computers will be good enough to spot wake turbulence when there is no radar signature fo an a/c - then Stealth investment not so pretty any more...as the fire control systems put a proximity weapon 'just in front' of that disturbance..

just opinions and sorry to divert your post.


----------



## davparlr (Jun 1, 2007)

drgondog said:


> My guess is that the radar and computers will be good enough to spot wake turbulence when there is no radar signature fo an a/c - then Stealth investment not so pretty any more...as the fire control systems put a proximity weapon 'just in front' of that disturbance..
> 
> just opinions and sorry to divert your post.



As signals get closer to noise, decoy and other countermeasures become far more effective.

Also remember, the very powerful sensors required to detect air turbulence would be detected by the stealth aircraft long before the turbulence would be detected, resulting in the use of an appropiate suppression method. This is one of the primary tasks of stealth aircraft, SEAD (surpression of enemy air defenses).


----------



## drgondog (Jun 2, 2007)

Dave - I suspect we are too close to the newer systems like the former USSR is putting into Iran that even advanced Harm like systems will be no good for anti radar site suppression with missles... I'm too far away from current to near future doctrine and systems but believe (not know) that to be true

Further, the role of the stealthy guys is to take out the sophisticated radar and guidance systems.. if the next step in anti aircraft is in radiation/beam type weapons instead of missles coupled to the wake detection radar then all the countermeasure weapons in the inventory and on the board are worthless unless you can jam the signal producing system or take the sites out from space.. which makes stealth irrelevant at that moment in time anyway. 

We're close to that now. I saw some awesome laser technology at Sandia in the early 80's - can't imagine where that technology is 25 years later.

And it certainly has to occur to both of us that if we are close to hitting MIRVs from ground stations at long range, that the detection systems and ballistic guidance to something in front of wake turbulence that doesn't care about an IR signature, then current countermeasures won't be effective in the future. 

just an interested old codger - as we take this diversion.

Regards,

Bill

I'll take your word that my points are silly.


----------



## SirianKnight (Oct 16, 2007)

Hi People! My virgin post in here.

Best fighter (in AIR COMBAT) of WWII - I think that I generally agree with Captain Eric Brown RN, who flew and comprehensively tested them all!
Brown says Üp till 1943 the Zero was the best. After that, he cites the P51, Griffon Spits and Fw 190D as being hard to seperate.

I am inclined to include the Yak3 as a contender.

I personally give the credit for NEUTRALISING the Luftwaffe to the good old P47. Wasn't necessarily a great fighter...but it was there in NUMBERS', it was tough, well armed and flown by well trained, motivated pilots!

My personal favourites....the Tempest and the P38.

SirianKnight


----------



## drgondog (Oct 16, 2007)

SirianKnight said:


> Hi People! My virgin post in here.
> 
> Best fighter (in AIR COMBAT) of WWII - I think that I generally agree with Captain Eric Brown RN, who flew and comprehensively tested them all!
> Brown says Üp till 1943 the Zero was the best. After that, he cites the P51, Griffon Spits and Fw 190D as being hard to seperate.
> ...



The Jug was one of the most important USAAF fighters but the NUMBERs had nothing to do with air superiority over Germany as they couldn't go past Bremen and Stuttgart. The P-51 Neutralized the Luftwaffe.

The 51 should not be nominated as the Best if you use equal rating for turn radius, climb, dive, roll, top speed, ceiling, range, acceleration or toughness - but because it was as good or better as the LW could put up over Berlin when no other fighter could get close - it gets the nomination for MOST IMPORTANT in capturing air superiority over Germany in 1944.

Eric Brown BTW ranked the Spit, the 109 then the F6F before the 51 as Best. We used to have some spirited debates about the thesis I just posed to you. He is a very knowledgeable guy and the only one who can discuss comparative capabilities of all the top fighters with an objective POV of having flown ALL extensively. I rested my case on Strategic Footprint, he rested his case on evolutionary excellence (Spit)

This is a debate that will never have all the proponents agreeing... which is why it is fun


----------



## Soren (Oct 17, 2007)

AFAIK, the Spitfire Mk.XIV FW-190 Dora-9 were the the two very best piston engined fighters of WW2 according to Eric Brown. 

Acording to Eric Browm the absolute best fighter to emerge from WW2 was the Me-262A-1a, in his own words ''_The most formidable aircraft of the war_".


----------



## Bullockracing (Oct 17, 2007)

BTW Eric Brown didn't even know proper English - The He 219 moniker of "Uhu" was not an "onomatopoeic sobriquet" as he so eloquently mispoke in his book... This type of erroneous use of big words to make yourself seem better than everyone else places your personal opinion under suspicion IMHO...


----------



## PFF (Oct 21, 2007)

Depends on what you wanted in a aircraft:
Fast--try the P-38
Powerful--the P-47
 BEAUTIFUL-the P-51
Came across a website oN WW II aircraft-US pilots thought the ME 109 cockpit was too cramped while German Pilots thought the P-47 cockpit was too big!!!! True?


----------



## Glider (Oct 21, 2007)

Bullockracing said:


> BTW Eric Brown didn't even know proper English - The He 219 moniker of "Uhu" was not an "onomatopoeic sobriquet" as he so eloquently mispoke in his book... This type of erroneous use of big words to make yourself seem better than everyone else places your personal opinion under suspicion IMHO...



I admit that I thought this pretty close. An onomatopoeic sobriquet would imply that the nickname was a close description of the obect in question. In this case, the He219 being nicknamed 'Owl' was I suggest close, as it certainly had the potential be be a capable hunter of the night and was by no means a poor performer. 

Unless I miss my mark by a long way.


----------



## renrich (Oct 21, 2007)

In my opinion, Eric Brown was an extremely biased and not particularly astute "expert." For instance, he scorns the F4U and holds the F6F up as a paragon. I never talked or have read that a pilot who flew either of these AC would pick an Hellcat in ACM over a Corsair. The USN, as soon as the deck landing problems of the Corsair were solved, replaced the F6F with F4Us ASAP. All of Brown's evaluations are suspect, IMHO.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 21, 2007)

renrich said:


> In my opinion, Eric Brown was an extremely biased and not particularly astute "expert." For instance, he scorns the F4U and holds the F6F up as a paragon. I never talked or have read that a pilot who flew either of these AC would pick an Hellcat in ACM over a Corsair. The USN, as soon as the deck landing problems of the Corsair were solved, replaced the F6F with F4Us ASAP. All of Brown's evaluations are suspect, IMHO.



I completly agree with you.

Does anyone have a numbered list of how he ranked the aircraft?


----------



## renrich (Oct 21, 2007)

According to Brown, "Duels In the Sky" the list is in descending order: Spitfire XIV, FW 190D9, Mustang IV, George 12, Tempest V, F6F3, Zeke 53. I don't know where that leaves F4U4, contemporaneous with George and Spifire XIV. It would easily defeat half that list and be no worse than even with the rest. His list of greatest Naval fighters is: Hellcat,Zeke,Wildcat,Corsair, Sea Hurricane, Seafire. Guess the USN did not know about Brown's disdain for the Corsair.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 21, 2007)

So he rated the Seafire and the Sea Hurricane better than teh Corsair?

Wow...


----------



## renrich (Oct 21, 2007)

No, he rated the Sea Hurricane and Seafire behind the Corsair. The list is in descending order. I am a computer ignoramus and don't know how to do paragraphs or columns. Sorry. Actually, I believe Brown test flew an early F4U1 with the bird cage canopy, perhaps made by Brewster and with all the flaws that made the early Corsair a beast to land on a carrier. The leaking cowl flap hydraulics, bouncing landing gear, abrupt left wing stall, poor visibility, tail wiggle and never bothered to update his data and opinions. He gives the top speed of the Corsair I as 395 mph when the USN figures as well as manufacturer ones say 417 mph before they had water injection. My personal opinion is that he would not acknowledge the performance of the F4U4 because that would mean he would have to give it serious consideration as the best overall fighter of WW2. He was very biased toward European designs.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 21, 2007)

Okay either way how the hell is the Zeke ahead of the Corsair? That alone gives me reason to suspect.


----------



## Civettone (Oct 22, 2007)

Perhaps he didn't consider it to be suited for carrier operations... When did he test the Corsair?

Kris


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 22, 2007)

I dont know but the Corsair was a magnificent carrier fighter and it outperformed all of the above aircraft in his ratings.


----------



## Hop (Oct 22, 2007)

It might have had higher performance, but I suspect Brown was more concerned with how it performed overall.

The USN provide lots of operational records, and comparing the Hellcat and Corsair shows the Hellcat to have much lower loss rates.

Hellcats flew 41,715 combat sorties from carriers. Losses were 551 to enemy action, 212 not to enemy action on operational sorties, and 509 on non-operational sorties. That's 1,272 losses, or 1 loss per 32.8 sorties.

For Corsairs the figures are 9,138 operational sorties from carriers, 167 losses to enemy action, 69 not to enemy action on operational sorties, 224 on non operational sorties. That's 460 losses, or 1 loss per 19.9 sorties.

1 in 75 Hellcat operational sorties resulted in a loss to enemy action.
1 in 54 Corsair operational sorties resulted in a loss to enemy action.

1 in 196 Hellcat operational sorties resulted in an accidental loss.
1 in 132 Corsair operational sorties resulted in an accidental loss.

The Hellcat lost 1 aircraft to non operational causes per 82 operational sorties.
The Corsair lost 1 aircraft to non operational causes per 41 operational sorties.

A seperate set of figures from the USN, loss rates for 1944 and 1945 from carriers:

Operational losses per 100 action sorties:

F6F - 0.5
F4U - 0.74

Per 100 non action sorties:

F6F - 0.7
F4U - 1.15

Per 100 planes onboard ship a month:

F6F - 3.1
F4U - 5.5

The F4U had substantially higher loss rates than the Hellcat. That might have been acceptable if the performance differences were huge, but I don't think they were.


----------



## Civettone (Oct 22, 2007)

Let me clarify what I said. The Corsair was considered to be unsuited for carrier operations until late 1943. In fact, the British were the first to operate them from carriers. But in general pilots preferred the Hellcat to fly from carriers. I can imagine that being an important issue to Brown. 

Not sure though. Just a thought.
Kris


----------



## renrich (Oct 22, 2007)

As I said in an earlier post, the USN determined, sometime in 1944, that the Corsair was superior to the Hellcat and recommended that the Hellcat be replaced by Corsairs on carriers ASAP and it was. My figures show a different picture as far as effectiveness of the two AC. In total they both flew about the same # of sorties. 66530 for the Hellcat and 64051 for the Corsair. Obviously the Hellcat had more carrier sorties and the Corsair more land based. The Hellcat had more operational losses, 340 to 230 for the Corsair. That would be because of the deck landing environment being more dangerous. The Hellcat had 553 losses to triple a and 270 to enemy air. The Corsair had 349 to aaa and 189 to enemy air. Now comes the interesting part. The Hellcat destroyed 1445 enemy bombers and 3718 enemy fighters and dropped 6503 tons of bombs. The Corsair destroyed 478 bombers and 1662 fighters and dropped 15621 tons of bombs. So the Corsair destroyed almost 4 times as many fighters, a more dangerous opponent, as bombers. The Hellcat destroyed only a little more than twice as many fighters as bombers. The Corsair was in action several months before the Hellcat and was used as an escort fighter in those early days when the Japanese pilot was perhaps more effective than later on in the war. The Corsair dropped well over twice the tonnage of bombs that the Hellcat did but had not quite half the losses from aaa. Is it any wonder that the USN picked the Corsair over the Hellcat given those stats and the big performance edge the Corsair had over the Hellcat?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 23, 2007)

Civettone said:


> Let me clarify what I said. The Corsair was considered to be unsuited for carrier operations until late 1943. In fact, the British were the first to operate them from carriers. But in general pilots preferred the Hellcat to fly from carriers. I can imagine that being an important issue to Brown.
> 
> Not sure though. Just a thought.
> Kris



I was not argueing with you on that. I dont think any of us will ever know what was going on in his head.


----------



## Glider (Oct 23, 2007)

renrich said:


> His list of greatest Naval fighters is: Hellcat,Zeke,Wildcat,Corsair, Sea Hurricane, Seafire. Guess the USN did not know about Brown's disdain for the Corsair.



I haven't read the book and this is just a guess but I think I can see where he was comming from. The key may well be in the use of the word Greatest, not Best.

Hellcat.
She turned the course of the naval war in the air, defeated the Japanese and had the Corsair not come along, the war would still have been won. 

Zeke
She dominated the early war years. People can argue which was the best, the Zeke and the Wildcat but I see it as being similar to the P51. She may not have been better than the opposition, but she had the range to impose herself on the opposition, a key strategic advantage.

Wildcat
She held the corner until better planes came along and had an important role until the end.

Corsair
Certainly had the performance to beat all the other contenders on the list. However her service at sea was limited in length and the opposition was already beaten by the Hellcat. She may have been better, but was she greater?

Sea Hurricane and Seafire
No comment needed, apart from they were better than the Fulmar.


----------



## renrich (Oct 23, 2007)

Very good points Glider. Your reasoning is probably close to that of Brown's. Where I have my quarrel with Brown is in at least two areas. In this book he sets up theoretical dogfights between various AC. In these dogfights, although there is no direct comparison, one would draw the conclusion, based on his judgment of who would beat who, that the Hellcat was a more worthy ACM fighter than the Corsair. We know this was not reality. All one needs to do is read a USN comparison report on the Hellcat or Corsair versus the FW190. It is somewhere on this website. The other argument I have with him is regarding the deck landing characteristics of the two fighters. Everyone knows that the early Corsairs had a number of defects as far as deck landings were concerned. However these were solved on production AC fairly quickly. As a matter of fact Blackburn's squadron of USN Corsairs had worked out the details and was ready to deploy on a carrier when it was decided by the Navy that, because the supply pipeline was already filled with Hellcat spares and other material to keep the planes operational, that the Hellcat would be the carrier fighter and The Jolly Rogers would go to the Solomon's as land based fighters. Of course the Marines had already enjoyed considerable success with early model Corsairs in the Solomons. At any rate, the Hellcat got all the glory and an enviable kill loss ratio against a growing number of Japanese pilots who were equipped in many cases with obselete AC and who were so inexperienced that it was problematical when ever they attempted a carrier landing. In fact, late in 1944 many of the IJN carriers had no air group because of crew shortages. The Corsair soldiered on flying more than twice the air to ground sorties than the Hellcats. Meanwhile the Navy realised the Corsair was superior to the Hellcat in most respects and the first official deployment of the Corsair was on the Enterprise as night fighters. Deck landing problems anyone? When the kamikaze threat became obvious a faster climbing and speedier fleet defense fighter was needed and Corsairs soon became ubiquitous in the fleet with many of the Corsairs being flown by Marines off of jeep carriers. Deck landing problems anyone? If Brown is going to downgrade the Corsair because of the early teething problems and ignore it's later sterling qualities and service, to me, it would be the same as saying the P51 was fine at low levels but ran out of wind above 17000 feet because the Allison engine did not have adequate supercharging, ignoring the Mustang's service with the Merlin engine.


----------



## Glider (Oct 23, 2007)

As I said I hadn't read the book and was thinking of buying it. Now I can see where you are coming from and will save my money.


----------



## renrich (Oct 23, 2007)

I was disappointed in the book. Just reading it again and in a theoretical dogfight between a FW190A4 and a Corsair II, he says the FW is a clear winner. Whereas the fight between F6F3 and the FW is so finely balanced that the pilot will determine the outcome. Clearly at odds with the USN report earlier mentioned and clearly at odds with any pirep I ever heard comparing the two US planes.


----------



## Neto (Nov 3, 2007)

hey people! I only now post in this thread, i like that someone tell me if the bf 109 (any version) was discuted here ...? he is on the top 5 ?? ;P


----------



## evangilder (Nov 4, 2007)

And with that Der gangster ist banned. Insulting a moderator is your ticket out.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 4, 2007)

I go away for the weekend and I miss all the fun!


----------



## Sgt. Pappy (Nov 6, 2007)

With the Zero near the front, I still can't really justify the whole list. 
Then again, people define 'good fighters' as different things a lot of the time.
If we were talking pure interceptor or overall fighter (including things like carrier operations abilities) or just the performance in the air, lists would change quite dramatically.

As of even late 1943, when F4U-1A's were being installed with water-injection, they were getting even more dominant in fighter-fighter combat sorties against Japanese a/c. Rating the plane on its crashes rather than its victories is probably not the best way to rate an a/c on performance, but if you're thinking about how planes perform towards the war effort, it's pretty imortant to consider. The Zeke never really was a plane to screw up on the deck, and it did dominate for a while, so in terms of its value in the war effort, its carrier deck abilities were invaluable.

Brain fart: what number would the Seafire be on the list if a Spitfire Mk.IX was converted into a Seafire? It just needs an arrester and folding wings... about 570 lbs. in weight. Big, but it would still be ok.. especially fitted with a Merlin 66. Anyone know of tests like this?


----------



## wingnuts (Nov 6, 2007)

I think the Spitfire landing gear was a bit too flimsy for carrier landings, a more widely spaced and toughend gear would be needed.... also fitting a hook also requires a stonger fuselage frame.....

The Seafire was a Spitfire converted for carrier landings... originally called a Sea Spitfire.

Supermarine Seafire


----------



## Sgt. Pappy (Nov 6, 2007)

That's why the Seafire really wasn't much of a success. I was just wondering about the adaptability of a Spitfire IX into a Seafire... may have been thrice the aircraft the Seafire III was. 

Then again, the F4U Corsair would probably have bested even that. In fact there are accounts of Corsairs able to outturn Ki-84s thanks to the oh-so wonderful slotted flaps. As an overall combat machine, I still vote for the F4U.


----------



## magnocain (Nov 6, 2007)

i am f4u crazy. it gets my vote several times over.


----------



## Sgt. Pappy (Nov 12, 2007)

Then again it also depends what people mean as fighter.
Do they mean interceptor or which fighter was the best in terms of its multi-role capability? Indeed the F4U was more versatile in combat than the Spitfire as it could be used as a jabo machine launched from a carrier, but one could argue the Spitfire's high climb rate and high maneuverability made it a better recon and interceptor aircraft. Also, its frame accepted bigger, badder engines without much loss of maneuverability.

Heheh, that's why I can't seem to choose between the two, as both the Spit and Hog are great.


----------



## Soren (Nov 13, 2007)

1. Me-262A-1a for sure, nothing matches it.

2. Ta-152H-1, by far the best piston engined fighter of WW2

3. Fw-190 Dora-9, the best piston engined fighter to be produced in quantity during WW2. It possessed better maneuverability in all aspects of flight compared to virtually every late war Allied fighter except for the Spitfire Mk.XIV.


----------



## Sgt. Pappy (Nov 13, 2007)

Well, the F4U-4 did well, and it turned better than the Spitfire XIV (and so did the other F4U's), given flap usage. I'd have the 262 up top for sure as well, now that i think about it.


----------



## Soren (Nov 13, 2007)

No the F4U-4 would not out-turn the Spitfire Mk.XIV, not even with flaps deployed. The F4U-4's slotted flaps weren't more effective than the FW-190's flaps.

The Bf-109 featured slotted flaps as-well btw.


----------



## Sgt. Pappy (Nov 14, 2007)

Not to be a burden but why wouldn't the F4U flaps allow it to turn tighter? 
I think I posted this link on another thread as well: The Math Behind Turning

According to that data which calculates every factor determining turn rate due to proven physical data, the Corsair easily turns very tightly. I know I can't be considered credible, but the Aces High II game shows the Corsair turning much tighter than the 109 and Spitfire XIV with flaps. Just ask the guys down at the Aces High II forums, or at least check it out. They've got some hard data concerning real-life mathematical theories based on the F4U's turning ability. Welcome to Aces High II

I could be mistaken, but with the data they've got, I highly doubt they're wrong. 

Also, how could the 190's split flaps possibly be more effective than a slotted flap? Sorry for my ignorance, I still need to learn more, but from what I know now, that can be possible unless they're some kind of split-slot hybrid.


----------



## Civettone (Nov 15, 2007)

> It possessed better maneuverability in all aspects of flight compared to virtually every late war Allied fighter except for the Spitfire Mk.XIV.


Also more manoeuvrable than the Russian fighters??

Kris


----------



## Soren (Nov 15, 2007)

Sgt.Pappy,

Here you can see the effects the different types of flaps have on the CLmax, and as you can see the split flap system is actually more effective than the slotted flap system:


----------



## Soren (Nov 15, 2007)

Civettone said:


> Also more manoeuvrable than the Russian fighters??
> 
> Kris



Yes, and it certainly proved that as-well by totally slaughtering its VVS opposition, even the very fast maneuverable Yak-3 proved no match for the Dora-9.


----------



## Sgt. Pappy (Nov 15, 2007)

Soren said:


> Sgt.Pappy,
> 
> Here you can see the effects the different types of flaps have on the CLmax, and as you can see the split flap system is actually more effective than the slotted flap system:



Thanks for the document, Soren, I've been looking all over the place for this.
Anyway, I can see that for the same given airfoil the slotted flap seems to produce more drag than lift and thus a lower Clmax, but the Corsair and the 190 (and Spitfire) all have different foils. I'll be sure to ask the Aces High II guys about it though.

Meanwhile let me post something they found. It's a pdf file: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/ptr-1107.pdf


----------



## Soren (Nov 16, 2007)

The FW-190A in that test suffered from improperly adjusted ailerons which led to premature stalling in turns, hence the results. The right fuel wasn't used either, the engine running very roughly, which means less power which in turn affects sustained turn performance, again hence the results.


----------



## Crumpp (Nov 16, 2007)

> Not to be a burden but why wouldn't the F4U flaps allow it to turn tighter?



Anything more than a small amount of flaps is detrimental to turn performance.

Games are hardly relevant. They are mass market media attempting to make a profit. IMHO, the games should be left where they belong, in the toybox.

All the best,

Crumpp


----------



## Sgt. Pappy (Nov 18, 2007)

Which is why I said, crump, that you could visit the Aces High II forums.
People there are just as real as you are. Much of the discussion revolves around real performance vs. the game's performance. 

There's way too many other factors that determine turn rate... not just that the NACA tests say that split flaps are more efficient than slotted flaps. The Corsair's bent wing for example was solely created to allow for short gear, but it had unknown side-effects like decreasing drag at the wing root and giving the aircraft poor elevator authority when all three wheels were on the ground, as one of the smarter member of the Aces High community stated. 

Good point Soren, I knew there would be something wrong with an Allied-captured Axis fighter. 

Yes, flaps may often seem very dangerous to use over 20 degrees for example. But that's just the manual. WEP is suggested to not be used for over 5 mins but pilots have 'WEPped' it for well over 7 minutes. Flaps aren't much different. The plane uses full flaps to land, raising AoA and lift co-efficient. The math i posted supoprts it. There's no 'games' in math. It's proven, give it a read, it's quite interesting. 

The Corsair's flaps are very likely to add more lift than drag even at 40 degrees because the manual also states that the flaps may be used for short take-offs at 50 degrees. If they added too much drag, this wouldnt be stated, especially by the manual, designed for pilot safety.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Nov 18, 2007)

How about best stalling tactics?


----------



## Soren (Nov 18, 2007)

Sgt. Pappy,

The difference between Crumpp and the people at the Aces High II Forum is that Crumpp has actual real life experience and expert knowledge on the subject. Crumpp unlike the guys at AHII works with these a/c daily, currently he works on a an actual FW-190 (White 1), you can visit here: Focke-Wulf FW 190 - White 1

As to the flaps, Crumpp's point was that applying anymore than a little flaps will be detrimental to turn performance, he's probably talking beyond around 15 degree's which is the max any fighter pilot will use in a dogfight really. Using anymore and you'll loose speed to quickly and your critical AoA has dropped too low.


----------



## Crumpp (Nov 18, 2007)

> Using anymore and you'll loose speed to quickly and your critical AoA has dropped too low.



That is correct. Typically large flap deflections will increase our drag by 75%. This means our power required goes up by 75%. The same angle of bank that required 2200hp for the F4U to sustain, now requires 3850hp to match it.

As for games, there are plenty of folks in the gaming community with enough knowledge to be dangerous and a game play agenda to motivate them. Sorry but I only post on gaming boards at the request of our paid museum members. Even then I restrict myself to topics of interest.

Soren,

I haven't read much of this thread at all. However at a quick glance, there is erroneous conclusions from both sides Or at least unsubstantiated conclusions. Given the science behind aircraft, these discussion's are down right silly at times IMHO.

The largest deciding factor is going to be the pilot.

All the best,

Crumpp


----------



## Soren (Nov 18, 2007)

Agreed completely Crumpp.

Btw Sgt. Pappy, I just noticed that you wrote this in your post: _"The plane uses full flaps to land, raising AoA and lift co-efficient"_ 

Flaps increase the CLmax, yes, but the critical AoA is lowered. You can see that on the table I provided as-well. 

What you can also see on the table is that slotted flaps are actually more detrimental to turn performance pr. degree of deflection than split flaps, giving the Fw-190 an advantage over most Allied fighters when deploying flaps in combat.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 18, 2007)

Crumpp how is the White 1 project going?

I hope when I return to the United States to help out on a restoration project one time. Do you guys use regular old A&P's as well?


----------



## Crumpp (Nov 18, 2007)

We are on scheduale but as always, the money is tight. 

We have just a few paid staff, that would be our A&P's! Everyone else is a volunteer.

Drop by, we will more than happy to put you to work for as long as you like!

Let me know if you get a time and dates. 

All the best,

Crumpp


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 18, 2007)

Crumpp said:


> We are on scheduale but as always, the money is tight.
> 
> We have just a few paid staff, that would be our A&P's! Everyone else is a volunteer.
> 
> ...



Oh I am not returning any time soon. I am staying in Germany until my wife is finished with her studies. I was just saying that when we do finally return to the states, I hope to volunteer and help out on a project at some point.


----------



## Crumpp (Nov 18, 2007)

I understand that it is not anytime soon. Just letting you know that we are open to volunteer workers. White 1 is on schedule to fly in 2009 and our Mustang will still be under restoration but will be close to being finished.

After White 1 we have a Dora scheduled for restoration in JV44 colors. So there will be work!

All the best,

Crumpp


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 18, 2007)

I am sure I will drop in at some time in the future!


----------



## Sgt. Pappy (Nov 18, 2007)

Ah okay, thanks Crumpp and Soren. I'm understanding this a little better.
It really helps me to get conclusions from both sides .. the gamers' and the non-gamers.

At any rate I always thought the slotted flap did a lot more than the split since the air was pressurized then ran over the top of the flap. Using Bernoulli's princ. lift must be produced. What, then, gives the split flap an advantage over the slotted? 

Also, I just recently figured out that the 190 and Corsair have the same air-foil. Does this most likely mean a Spitfire 14 will turn tighter than the F4U under the same speeds at the sea-level for example?


----------



## Crumpp (Nov 19, 2007)

> Does this most likely mean a Spitfire 14 will turn tighter than the F4U under the same speeds at the sea-level for example?



At the same velocity and angle of bank, they will make exactly the same turn.

All the best,

Crumpp


----------



## Soren (Nov 19, 2007)

> What, then, gives the split flap an advantage over the slotted?



Look at the table, the split flap not only provides a higher CLmax and a lower amount of drag, it also has a higher critical AoA than the slotted flap.


----------



## Sgt. Pappy (Nov 19, 2007)

Soren,
The chart disproves my assumption that the split flap is less efficient than the slotted-flap. This, though, IMO does not necessarily mean that an F4U Corsair cannot turn tighter than a Spitfire XIV at the same speed, that is, the F4U may pull more AoA at the same speeds because of its good instantaneous turn rate. I could be wrong, but the math doesn't seem to show that I am. There are just too many factors including thrust produced, weight, centre of gravity (I think), propellor efficiency, Again, it's my opinion, I could be wrong. 

Crumpp, 
I'm not making an offensive comment when I say this.. Have you flown the F4U-1A or 1D before (or its Goodyear or Brewster cousins)? I'd like to know what it was like to pull those planes with flaps down. Then again, I do understand that it is very difficult to pull these vintage planes to their performance envelope without possibly damaging something.


----------



## Soren (Nov 20, 2007)

Hehe, no Sgt. Pappy, the aircraft can't pull a higher AoA than the critical AoA of the wing itself, it is afterall the wing which holds up the aircraft  After the critical AoA is reached the a/c stalls. The only way of delaying this and allowing the aircraft to pull higher AoA's is fitting it with automatic LE slats. 

And I'd certainly like to see this math you so often have mentioned by now.

Also how exactly have you come to the conclusion that F4U-4 possesses a higher instantaneous turn rate than the Spitfire Mk.XIV ??


----------



## Sgt. Pappy (Nov 20, 2007)

Oh i thought I've posted the math. My bad. Must've been in another thread.
Click here: The Math Behind Turning
According to those calculations, the F4U-1 Corsair's turn rates on Aces High II are mathematically matching figures to those in real life. The equations are cited and seem to follow what I've learned in physics. The sources seem reliable but I'm still relatively new to the calculations shown so if it has some errors, I probably wouldn't know. 

The Spitfire XIV turns worse than the Corsair in the game as well, and if the math seems to prove that the Corsair's in-game figures are correct then the Spitfire XIV figures are also likely to be correct IMO.


----------



## Juha (Nov 21, 2007)

Hello
IMHO good Bf 109 and P-51 pilots used some 8deg flaps momentarily if they needed momentarily to tighten their turns. IIRC also Fw190 pilots could select "combat" position to their flaps and good P-38 pilots also used sometimes their flaps in turning fight. JAAF Ki-43 had combat "butterfly" flaps etc but Hurricane and Spitfire had only up or full down (80-90 deg) options for flaps and I really doubt that anyone used full down option in turning fight.

Juha


----------



## drgondog (Nov 21, 2007)

Juha said:


> Hello
> IMHO good Bf 109 and P-51 pilots used some 8deg flaps momentarily if they needed momentarily to tighten their turns. IMHO also Fw190 pilots could select "combat" position to their flaps and good P-38 pilots also used sometimes their flaps in turning fight. JAAF Ki-43 had combat "butterfly" flaps etc but Hurricane and Spitfire had only up or full down (80-90 deg) options for flaps and I really doubt that anyone used full down option in turning fight.
> 
> Juha



Juha - I have been in discussions between many Mustang pilots (and some 109 pilots) that discussed both success and no success using flaps in a turn with 109s. Of course the huge variable is pilot's skill.

Both my father and Warren Peglar were successful at 20,000 feet+ for multiple scores and 'tied' in 15,000 ft range in which other fighter pilots made the score because the Mustangs could not close or close fast enough.

Regards,

Bill


----------



## Juha (Nov 21, 2007)

Hello Bill
yes use of flaps wasn't a standard tactic exept maybe by Oscar pilots. And when used it was used only momentarily because of extra drag it created. I recall reading one case from Bud Anderson's memoirs and another case from Lipfert's Meine Kriegstagebuch but I'm not 100% sure on latter, might also be from another LW ace's recollections or even from recollections of one of Finnish aces.

Juha


----------



## AL Schlageter (Nov 21, 2007)

Juha, didn't one of the late war Japanese fighters have automatic 'maneuvering' flaps. Think it was the _George_ but could be the _Frank_.


----------



## Juha (Nov 21, 2007)

Hi Al
yes, according to Francillion's Japanese a/c book, older edition, George had that kind of system based on IIRC mercury filled U-tube. I'm not sure if the newer edition still had that info.

Juha


----------



## Crumpp (Nov 21, 2007)

> Let's try to get more exact in the case of the F4U-1, as in Aces High, it is a *surprisingly good turner with full flaps.*



The Math Behind Turning

I bet it is a good turner with full flaps in a game.  

So much for your realism in games......



> Have you flown the F4U-1A or 1D before (or its Goodyear or Brewster cousins)?



No I haven't but I do have friends that own them. 

Sorry, but full flaps will not improve any aircraft's turning performance. They are designed to make landing the aircraft safe. Doing that is not compatible with improving the turn performance as we simply are not going to have the power required anymore after our plane experiences the increase in drag from the full flaps.

All the best,

Crumpp


----------



## Crumpp (Nov 21, 2007)

Here Pappy,

This is from one of my textbooks used in my aircraft performance class at Embry Riddle. While the exact percentage will vary from aircraft to aircraft, typically it is in the 50% - 100% range for the increase in drag with full flaps. This means your thrust required increases 50%-100% in the same condition of flight.






Here is what the NACA concluded when they tested the effect of flap usage in 1943:





Here is what an aircraft's bank angle _at a constant altitude_ looks like:





All aircraft have a best turn velocity where they reach a balance of rate and radius. This is found at L/Dmax in thrust producers and Prmin (CL^3/2 / Cd) for Power producers. The correct effect of making a constant altitude full flap turn would be to decrease radius but increase the rate significantly. 

Your Corsair and a Spitfire Mk XIV at the same angle of bank and velocity will make exactly the same turn. That is why we have such things as standard rate turns in flying. If you ever go for your instrument rating, you will understand the importance of this fact.

In 99% of the Corsairs and Spits envelope, there is no difference between them in turning ability.

Turn coordinator - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

TURN COORDINATOR (ELECTRIC) from Aircraft Spruce

All the best,

Crumpp


----------



## Sgt. Pappy (Nov 21, 2007)

Ah okay I'm getting it. Thanks Crumpp, that's some good info. Do you own a book where you got this from? I'd like to see if I could find myelf a copy.

Sorry, regarding your last sentence: You mean that if both planes are flown to their respective edges, they will turn at the same rate?


----------



## Crumpp (Nov 22, 2007)

Modern Jet Transport Performance by James Lewis (Book) in Engineering

Flight Theory and Aerodynamics : A Practical Guide for Operational Safety (2nd Edition) is available from Bestprices.com Books!

Amazon.com: Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators (FAA Handbooks series): Books: Federal Aviation Administration

Amazon.com: Illustrated Guide to Aerodynamics: Books: Hubert C. Smith

And if you really want to know how airplanes work from a practical in cockpit view, my personal favourite. I read this when I was student pilot and at least twice since.

Amazon.com: Stick and Rudder: An Explanation of the Art of Flying: Books: Wolfgang Langewiesche



> You mean that if both planes are flown to their respective edges, they will turn at the same rate?



I am saying that for vast majority of the envelope, these aircraft turn exactly the same. There will be some differences in a very tiny portion near the edge, close to the stall point. However it will not be anything that the other aircraft cannot compensate for and match as long as there is altitude.


All the best,

Crumpp


----------



## Crumpp (Nov 22, 2007)

Pappy,

You do know you already have the information you need. The math on the webpage you keep posting is correct. 

What is not correct is the leaps of logic made on it. This is common from those not formally trained in aerodynamics and do not know how to put it all together. 

It is no different than seeing gamers argue that the limits set in their "favorite" aircraft can be exceeded. Those POH limits are set for a valid reason.

Go take a flying lesson and dive the plane past the placard limits or lower the flaps above the white arc and see what happens.

Actually don't, as there is a very good chance it will be your funeral, literally. I don't want your family coming back and trying to sue me.

All the best,

Crumpp


----------



## Sgt. Pappy (Nov 22, 2007)

Haha, well if i manage to fly when I'm a tad more experienced, I may try it.

Thanks for the book links. 

It is definitely true that there are biased people on the BBS, trying to prove their plane over the other guy's... but the smart ones do not do that. They simply prove what's needed to be proven. They don't attempt to prove people wrong for that sake, they prove what they find is technically stated to be true. I can't seem to find any 'leaps of logic' in their posts or on the sites... all put together on research.

Maybe I' don't fully understand it all but I know many MANY of the AHII community members have had formal aerodynamics experience as well as some aerospace engineering experience. I very much doubt that they can be biased.


----------



## Soren (Nov 22, 2007)

All I can say is that if they claim the F4U-4 turns better than the Spitfire Mk.XIV then they don't have allot of credibility.


----------



## Crumpp (Nov 22, 2007)

Here is what I mean by "leaps of logic". Configuration changes can be very complicated. The best methodology of estimating performance changes is through measured data, without that data, we are really just ballparking it badly. However we are drawing some conclusion off this one report on your webpage that cannot be made.

First of all the report he uses is this one, a wind tunnel test on a scale model. This will result in some very useful data. Unfortunately most of it will not be useful to anyone else but the engineering design team. 

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19930093637_1993093637.pdf

See they have the data to scale the results to the full sized aircraft. That is really is the most common use of Reynolds number. Reynolds number is a representation of the laminar to turbulent flow.

Rg = V_x_ / v

V = stream velocity of the wind tunnel
_x_ is the distance downstream , in a wing this is the leading edge generally

v = kinematic viscosity

It is easy to prove the data is not scaled by looking at the dynamic pressures. For example, they used a dynamic pressure of 13psf for the climb conditions of the aircraft. Well a Corsair climbs at 125KEAS and the dynamic pressure at that speed is about 52.96psf in an NACA 1922 atmosphere.

Without scaling the data from the model to the actual aircraft, the results are only useful for the engineers for any specific results. For example you cannot say our airplane will achieve a Cl of whatever based on this chart! The values of our ratio of lift or drag pressure's to dynamic pressure will change when they are scaled. 

*There are some very applicable general conclusions though that we can make off this data.* 

We can use the L/D ratio of this graph to get some solid conclusions about the general performance of the airplane.

L/D ratio is fixed by design and corresponds to a specific Angle of Attack as long as there is not a configuration change. That is why we can have the Angle of Attack scale at the bottom of the graph. The specific coefficients will change but the ratio will remain the same for given point on the curve that corresponds to a specific angle of attack.

As a rule of thumb, if we divide L/D ratio at a given angle of attack by weight, we get the thrust required to maintain that L/D ratio!

So lets use the same chart on your website:






We have two different Lift to Drag ratio's represented. 

The lower coefficient of lift yields an L/D ratio of ~CL1.4 / Cd .165 = 8.48

If our Corsair weighs 12,100 lbs then our thrust required in this condition of flight is:

12,100 / 8.48 = 1427lbs of thrust

In the second condition, we have a much higher coefficient of lift. Someone not formally trained might conclude this were we will get our best performance. 

The higher coefficient of lift yields an L/D ratio of ~ CL 2.25 / Cd .385 = 5.84

If our Corsair weighs 12,100lbs then our thrust required in the condition of flight is:

12,100lbs / 5.84 = 2072lbs of thrust required to maintain this condition of flight. A difference of 645lbs which represents a 45% increase in thrust required or drag at just over a 16 degree Angle of Attack.

So go figure how we are going to get a turn improvement in the same condiiton of flight for a 45% increase in drag. The crux is as our aircraft lowers it's velocity, we are even more aerodynamically limited and our angle of bank must get shallower the slower we go. 

If we read the conclusions of this Navy report which I posted earlier and is cited on your webpage, you will find them to be true.





http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19930092640_1993092640.pdf

How this became "the corsair turns great at full flaps" is an exercise in why formal education is very important. Just because someone works the formulas does not show an understanding of the underlying principles.

Lesson to you, young man..less games and more studying!



I am going to have some turkey! Happy Thanksgiving all!

All the best,

Crumpp


----------



## Sgt. Pappy (Nov 22, 2007)

Very good writeup indeed, Crumpp. I'll be reading it, and getting a better understanding of all this math hehe. Too bad I'm too lazyto do work... I'd rather play games 8)
But I'll be sure to keep reading. 
Have a good Thanksgiving everyone!


----------



## Crumpp (Nov 22, 2007)

Let me know if you have any quesitons.

All the best,

Crumpp


----------



## Soren (Nov 22, 2007)

Any news about the addition of the Bf-109 sustained load factors ?


----------



## Crumpp (Nov 23, 2007)

> I'll be reading it, and getting a better understanding of all this math hehe.



Pappy,

One of the reason's for plotting the polars is to both assist and cut down on the math. You can look at the polar and get a good general conclusion on the performance trends.

For example, our L/D ratio is also termed the "glide ratio". The higher airplanes glide ratio is the more aerodynamically efficient the aircraft as a system. An L/D ratio of 8 really means 8:1 or for every eight feet of forward movement our aircraft is losing one foot of altitude.

We can eyeball the polar to get an idea of aerodynamic efficiency of the aircraft in different configurations:





Of course it must be kept in mind too that our structural load limits are greatly reduced the more flaps we add.

Here is what the Corsair's POH restricts the flaps usage for both velocity and manuvering:






*Maneuvering under loads at 50 degrees of flaps is not even an option for the pilot.* I am sure gamers will be glad to tell you otherwise and how a pilots manual is only a guideline.

Soren,

I will finish work on the analysis on the Bf-109 for you today.

All the best,

Crumpp


----------



## Soren (Nov 24, 2007)

Excellent Crumpp, thank you


----------



## Sgt. Pappy (Nov 24, 2007)

I am most often told that the pilot's guide is a guideline, but the wisest gamers in the AHII BBS like Widewing allow students like myself to come up with our own opinions and conclusions by giving us info. Thanks for the charts Crumpp. I've been wondering for the longest time about Glide Ratios. 

Yes, I recently just read that '20 degree' part in the F4U manual I had lying around somewhere here. 

However, I'm assuming that the full 50 degrees of flaps somehow help aid in lift-off at least on carriers? I remember seeing clean F4U-1's (or 1A's) of the FAA lift off with full deflection. Though I could be wrong; it amy have been 30-40 degrees.


----------



## Crumpp (Nov 24, 2007)

> I am most often told that the pilot's guide is a guideline,




You won't find pilots telling you that. 



> However, I'm assuming that the full 50 degrees of flaps somehow help aid in lift-off at least on carriers?



Many aircraft use full flaps to shorten a take off. This is not the same thing as using full flaps to improve turning ability.

I use full flaps for STOL take off's in my airplane. It's not good for the plane or the engine but you can do it. It is expressly authorized and the instructions are given in the POH.

Turning is a different condition of flight. Remember our coefficient of lift is reduced in a climb and a portion of thrust will offset lift.

In a turn we need to not only provide lift force to offset weight but it has to meet the force required to offset centripetal force.

Full flaps are used in some instances for turning too! If you take a mountain flying course, you will learn and practice "canyon turns".

This is an emergency procedure done preferably from a cruise flight condition where you find yourself boxed in by terrain. You pull the aircraft up and bank into a climbing turn. At the top of it, add full flaps until you reverse 180 degrees and pick up speed.

The idea is not that full flaps improve your turn over other configurations. What gets pilots killed in mountain flying turns is speed. Radius is a function of speed. 

Look at the chart again and compare both rates and radius:

Minimum Radius of Turn

We don't care if our rate of turn falls well below our best turn and it takes us all day to turn 180 degrees. What we care about is shortening the radius so we don't hit a mountain. Without the flaps, our airplane's rate of turn would be much better and we would make the 180 degree in much less time.

Because of our speed <cruise condition> we have too much speed and our radius will be much larger. The flaps allow us to lose the speed and make our turn with a smaller radius.

That does not mean that full flaps will show a turn improvement in fighter aircraft.

Look at the Buffalo turn test and let's do some math. The arrow’s point to the data points used in the calculations.

Here is the sustained envelope with no flaps at 13,000ft:






Here is the sustained envelope with full flaps at 13,000ft:






Using the BGS system:

Radius = Vk^2 / 11.26 tan<a>

ROT = 1091 * tan <a> / Vk

Angle of bank = arc cos <a> * 1/Nz

No flaps, Nzmax turn at 140mph

Radius = (140 * .869)^2 / 11.26 * tan 63
r = 531 ft


ROT = 1091 * tan 63 / (140 * .869)

ROT = 17.59

20.5 seconds to complete 360 degrees



Full Flaps, Nzmax turn at 140mph

r = (140 * .869)^2 / 11.26 * tan 57
r = 854 ft

ROT = 1091 * tan <a> / Vk

ROT = 1091 * tan 57 / (140 * .869)

ROT = 13.8 deg/sec

26 seconds to complete a 360 degrees

The aircraft with full flaps is at a substantial disadvantage.

Stall boundary turn at Nzmax with no flaps

r = (115 * .869)^2 / 11.26 * tan 57

r = 576 ft

ROT = 1091 * tan 57 / (115 * .869)

ROT = 16.8

21.4 seconds to complete 360 degrees

Stall boundary turn at Nzmax with full flaps

r = (85 * .869)^2 / 11.26 * tan 48

r = 436 ft

ROT = 1091 * tan 48 / (85 * .869)

ROT = 16.4

21.94 seconds to complete 360 degrees

The turns are for all practical purposes are equal. Rate being the most important characteristic of a turn to a fighter, the aircraft without flaps has a slight advantage.

That is the effect of dropping full flaps. Your radius will decrease but your rate is increased because you have less Power available.

You can check the math easily with a _universal turn chart_. Remember all aircraft at the same angle of bank and velocity will make exactly the same turn. Even a Corsair and a Spitfire Mk XIV!







All the best,

Crumpp


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 25, 2007)

Man, my head hurts now, and my eyesight is blurring...


----------



## Crumpp (Nov 25, 2007)

Sorry!


----------



## Crumpp (Nov 26, 2007)

> Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, *no person* may operate a civil aircraft without complying with the operating limitations specified in the approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual, markings, and placards, or as otherwise prescribed by the certificating authority of the country of registry.



Federal Aviation Regulation Sec. 91.9 - Civil aircraft flight manual, marking, and placard requirements.

The Military also makes compliance with Flight Manuals, markings, and placards mandatory:









As with any Military regulation, a service member can always add to it but not take away. In other words, units can supplement the information by further restrictions. They cannot take away for example by saying, "Our unit will _raise_ the listed dive limitations".

Those supplemental instructions must be forwarded to the appropriate authority listed in the Manual.

Technical _Orders_ are just that, orders and not Technical guidelines or suggestions.

Only game players view these instructions as "guidelines". To pilots, me included as I am a pilot, they are mandatory and non compliance has both legal and very real safety consequences.

All the best,

Crumpp


----------



## mad_max (Nov 26, 2007)

^^^^

Yep they sure were doing the war.  Your delusional if you think these "mandatory"
orders were strictly followed. They were broken and not just a few times.

As it was on both sides. Between getting shot to death or maybe living; the "rules"
go out the window.


----------



## Crumpp (Nov 26, 2007)

And how many hours do you have flying real airplanes before we conclude I am delusional?

Dead is dead, whether it comes from the airframe failing in mid flight because we exceeded the flutter limits, botched crash landing from engine failure, or the enemy’s bullets.

There are many ways to die in an airplane that do not involve aerial combat.

All the best,

Crumpp


----------



## Sgt. Pappy (Nov 26, 2007)

That's true but it also depends what guidelines. Some can be more important than others.

For example, you're not going to want to go past dive speed limits or G load limits because you'll be screwed either way. However, WEP limits have been gone over quite a bit during the war.


----------



## Crumpp (Nov 26, 2007)

> That's true but it also depends what guidelines. Some can be more important than others.



Hi Pappy,

I did not see your post. Your correct in that some maybe "more important" than others as their are different margins of safety on certain things on an airplane. However who is qualified to make that call? I may have mentioned this story but I know of guys who thought the flight manuals are guidelines too. They put a different oil in their motor that had the latest and greatest additive. Well the crank spun in the bearing races and now the guy is buying a new motor. About a 40,000 dollar mistake for not checking and following the guidelines. Scared the crap out of me because I used the same oil. I have different engine and it is ok to use in mine. However I changed it back to oil specified in the Flight Manual.

Go tell an A&P you want to use some WD-40 on your airplane to lube the canopy rails or control surfaces or some windex to clean your windshield.

So the question becomes who is qualified to decide what can be violated and what cannot? They are betting that they know more than the folks who designed and built the airplane.

The limitations found in the Flight Manuals are not put there on a whim. There are solid technical and engineering reasons for them. Facts are unlike a terrestrial vehicle, the margin of safety on an airplane has to be very small otherwise it just won't fly.

This is what made the Wright Brothers successful despite all the competition. They correctly chose an engine that ran at 100% of it's capacity assuming risk to shed weight. Their competition chose raw power without regard to weight.

This same formula is in use today. Unlike your car engine, which runs at ~30% capacity, all airplane engines run at 100% capacity for their maximum continuous rating. Any rating above that is over 100% of the engines power production capacity and we are stressing the motor.










Sure mechanics on all sides tinkered at the request of the pilots. It wasn't often and when it was discovered it was shut down.






All the best,

Crumpp


----------



## Crumpp (Nov 26, 2007)

Facts are guys, to think the Flight Manual instructions are only guidelines to be routinely violated is born of a gamer's fantasy and not the reality of airplanes.

Go tell the Air Force recruiter you want to be a pilot but don't need those Flight Manuals as they are just guidelines!

All the best,

Crumpp


----------



## Crumpp (Nov 26, 2007)

If you haven't seen the Allison memo PM me and I will give you a copy too.


----------



## Sgt. Pappy (Nov 26, 2007)

hehe, I'm more on the fence here, Crumpp. I support your airframe guidelines but many pilots have over-WEPed it before. Just saying. I remember Charlie Fox telling me that he's overWEPed by about 30 seconds during the war. 

And since we're on the gaming topic, I noticed a few things about AHII. 

After playing Aces High II for quite a while, I've felt that the Spitfire VIII (1943, Merlin 66, Griffon tail, b-type arm; c-type wing) is a much heavier plane than the Spitfire IX (1942, Merlin 61, Merlin tail, b-type arm; c-type wing), and that the Spitfire XVI (1944, Merlin 266, Griffon tail, e-type arm; clipped e-type wing) is too light. I know that the Spitfire VIII has hydraulic fluid for its retractable tailwheel, extra wing fuel tanks (don't know if they self-seal) and wing strengthening but when the IX and VIII are at tare weight, there's only a 182 lb. difference. Does that hydraulic fluid really add some extra 350 lbs. + weight? 

The weights are displayed as such: 
Spitfire VIII: full ammo/100% fuel (124 Imp Gal) - 7807 lbs.
full ammo/25% fuel (31 Imp Gal) - 7137 lbs. 
light (no ammo/fuel/bombs) - 6679 lbs.

Spitfire IX: full ammo/100% fuel (85 Imp Gal) - 7303 lbs. - should be 7445 lbs.
full ammo/25% fuel (21.25 Imp Gal) - 6843 lbs. 
light - 6455 lbs.

Spitfire XVI: full ammo/100% fuel (85 Imp Gal) - 7241 lbs.
full ammo/25% fuel (21.25 Imp Gal) - 6781 lbs.
light - 6329 lbs.

Are these figures close to accurate?


----------



## Soren (Nov 26, 2007)

Hehe, Sgt. Pappy those figures should be easy to check for yourself.


----------



## Crumpp (Nov 26, 2007)

Hi Pappy,

You can check them yourself here:

Spitfire Performance Testing

I hope you understand that I could care less what AHII has in their game and no desire to find out.

All the best,

Crumpp


----------



## Sgt. Pappy (Nov 26, 2007)

Yea, Soren, I've looked around all over the place, including Spitfireperformance.com but I haven't found the weights of hydraulic fluid and such.

Meh it's just a brain fart, since I'm a mad Spitfire fan. 

Crumpp, do have similar charts for the running of the Merlin 66? I've been looking everywhere, and google has failed me on all occassions haha.


----------



## mad_max (Nov 27, 2007)

Sgt. Pappy,

According to Robert Gruenhagen in his book *Mustang*_ The Story Of The P-51 Fighter_
the 1650-7 has the equivalent British rating of R.M. 10 S.M. Comparable
British engines 
are the Mark 65, 66, 67 and 85.

The 1650-3 was derived from the Merlin 61 and doesn't have a comparative British rating.

I have some data you may want. PM me your email if you want them.


----------



## mad_max (Nov 27, 2007)

Crumpp,

Doesn't matter how many hours I have in a cockpit of civil aircraft. It would have to
be how many hours I have in a WW2 aircraft during the war years; in combat, which
I'm betting is the same amount as you have.

There are numerous accounts of using WEP for more than 5 min. and there are a
few with 20+ min with Merlin's. Was it normal? NO, but it was done and not one of
them said they were busted and Dishonorably Discharged. Of course we don't know how
many of them paid the price for doing it.

Then the other accounts of having bent/buckled skins wings from diving for jets or trying to 
close the distance on an enemy.

There are too many accounts for them to be stories made up.

I agree that in a normal situation I'd be operating within the guidelines and Tech orders,
but if it was a life or death situation I'd be doing what had to be done. As it happened
in the war.


----------



## Crumpp (Nov 27, 2007)

No MadMax it does matter how much experience you have in a real cockpit.

All aircraft operate under exactly the same principles whether they are Boeing 747, P51, or a Piper Cub.



> Of course we don't know how
> many of them paid the price for doing it.





> it was a life or death situation I'd be doing what had to be done.



Exactly, only the success stories lived to tell about it.

All the best,

Crumpp


----------



## Crumpp (Nov 27, 2007)

Let's look at accident statistics and put some perspective on the importance of following the "guidelines".










Facts are if you sidestep the proper procedures laid out in the Technical instructions for the design, it will in all probability become the cause of your accident.

Modifications outside the approved standards were rare exceptions during the war and cannot be classified as anything close to the norm. While the success stories lived to tell about we will never know how many died when their engine failed them just when they needed it the most.

Statistics tell us about 80% of those who step outside the approved procedures end up in an accident.

Good reasons why compliance with the Technical instructions is mandatory despite the fantasy of gamers.

All the best,

Crumpp


----------



## Crumpp (Nov 27, 2007)

> Crumpp, do have similar charts for the running of the Merlin 66?



I have some original spitfire documents including all the POH's for type. What similar chart are you needing?

Power? ratings? Aircraft Performance?

All the best,

Crumpp


----------



## mad_max (Nov 27, 2007)

Oh if you really must know...I have just the right amount of hours in Civil Aircraft
to be dangerous. 225.5 hours in a Cessna. Still has no bearing on a life or death
struggle in WW2 air combat. They did what needed to be done.

Posting all the Civil aircraft data and such means nothing for the gents in combat.
We all know the largest percentage of accidents are caused by pilot error.


----------



## Crumpp (Nov 27, 2007)

> Oh if you really must know...I have just the right amount of hours in Civil Aircraft
> to be dangerous. 225.5 hours in a Cessna.



Interesting. What's the examiners designation on your Medical if you don't mind me asking as I must know?



> Posting all the Civil aircraft data and such means nothing for the gents in combat.
> We all know the largest percentage of accidents are caused by pilot error.



So Physics is different for military aircraft huh? Your saying they can afford a margin of safety much higher than 1.5 average and still fly?

In WWII they had a bubble of immunity to these physical limits, right?

All the best,

Crumpp


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 27, 2007)

LMFAO Crumpp....


----------



## Sgt. Pappy (Nov 27, 2007)

Thanks for the offer Max. I have charts on the Merlin 61, but I'd just like to find ratings for the Merlin 66 since it's got different supercharger settings and whatnot. 

Crumpp, 
If it's not too much trouble I'm just looking mainly for the max. hp outputs of the 66 at particular altitudes compared to the Merlin 63's outputs. 
I looked around in the Spitfire manual but I can't find it.


----------



## Crumpp (Nov 28, 2007)

You mean like this?





All the best,

Crumpp


----------



## plan_D (Nov 29, 2007)

mad max,

I see your point; there were occasions of pilots acting outside the instructions, but unfortunately [as Crumpp stated] many of them died as a consequence. The pilots that acted in desperation and survived were either exceptionally good pilots or lucky; probably the latter. It makes no difference what type of aircraft you're flying, they've all got the same forces acting upon them. 

I have a mere 30 minutes flight time in a Cessna 152 so I'm hardly qualified on making comment on actually flying an aircraft (although to say it's fun!). But I am in the second year of studying aerospace engineering, and I can only hope the safety drilled into us is the same as that drilled into a pilot during flight training. I don't want to have to force myself to do everything by the book and correctly, for some dip-sh*t pilot to f*ck it all up. The amount of times I've heard "...refer to the aircraft maintenance manual and follow it!" is enough to have me saying it in my sleep. What I'm trying to say is; if I have to follow the rules, then the posing p*ss-ant pilot should do too. (no offence Joe 'n Matt  )


----------



## Sgt. Pappy (Nov 30, 2007)

Yea, Crumpp, I need one similar to that one. Where do you find all these resources? I don't want to be bothering you all the time heheh.

OT: Plan_D, 

how's aerospace engineering treating you? I'm planning on taking it after I finish high school, but I'm not sure if I can. They say I'm smart, but I think - like the veterans who survived forgetting about the manual - I'm just lucky.


----------



## Crumpp (Nov 30, 2007)

> Where do you find all these resources?



For the original WWII documents, Archives of Museum's mostly, Sgt Pappy.

Be prepared to spend some money too. The fees range from ~1-300USD depending on the archive and the document. Some archives will look up and copy reports for additional fees. Most prefer you set an appointment and visit in person to do research.

We have amassed a collection over about a decade at cost of~100,000USD not including travel expenses and time.

Sometimes it is better to be lucky than smart!

All the best,

Crumpp


----------



## plan_D (Dec 1, 2007)

_"how's aerospace engineering treating you? I'm planning on taking it after I finish high school, but I'm not sure if I can. They say I'm smart, but I think - like the veterans who survived forgetting about the manual - I'm just lucky."_

It's all going very well, thank you. If you want to study aerospace engineering, you should. More than anything it's enjoyment of the subject and dedication, obviously a little bit intelligence can be thrown into the mix for good measure.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 2, 2007)

Sgt. Pappy said:


> Yea, Crumpp, I need one similar to that one. Where do you find all these resources? I don't want to be bothering you all the time heheh.
> 
> OT: Plan_D,
> 
> how's aerospace engineering treating you? I'm planning on taking it after I finish high school, but I'm not sure if I can. They say I'm smart, but I think - like the veterans who survived forgetting about the manual - I'm just lucky.



Lot of math and applied physics in the realm of Fluid Mechanics, and Heat and Mass transfer - before you start the specialized aero disciplines. I'm 30 years behind the current classroom infrastructure but if you strive for theretical aerodynamicsI would be suprised if your math syllabus stops short of Calculus of Variations and maybe Chaos Theory?


----------



## Sgt. Pappy (Dec 2, 2007)

Haha. Chaos theory... I like the sound of that. I'm already taking physics and I'm doing ok so far.. Perhaps you gents could help me with my homework heheh. 

Oh, then I'm lucky, Crumpp. I volunteer at a museum in which I have almost free access to the library. I've been raiding it every now and then since I was 14; youve gotta see the look on the curator's face.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 3, 2007)

Sgt. Pappy said:


> Haha. Chaos theory... I like the sound of that. I'm already taking physics and I'm doing ok so far.. Perhaps you gents could help me with my homework heheh.
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> I'll pass on the HW Pappy - Chaos theory was all about using (trying!) different math and computer modesl in the study of turbulent flow/boundary layer interactions..


----------



## SpitfireKing (Dec 4, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Yes it is I am going to try and find some info on RAF encounters with the Dora, if there are any.



Does seem like a good topic to read, doesn't it. I think I'll find some stuff to.


----------



## helmitsmit (Dec 6, 2007)

I am applying for doing Aerospace Engineering next year. Can't wait!


----------



## langwolfca (Dec 9, 2007)

It is impossible to say which ww2 fighter is the best, as some types never met. Also, NO fighter was excellent at low AND high altitude. Somebody would have to choose the BEST candidate based on the mission and then choose a BEST fighter from each country.

The Germans did have outstanding aircraft all through the war, but to say that they were the best would be wrong. They did get a jet fighter in the air first, but that did not affect the outcome at all. The Me 262 could not be touched at altitude, but when they were taking off and landing they were a sitting duck. The throttles in those things could only be VERY gradually moved back and forth, or a burnout/flameout would happen and he would then have NO power. A non-jet fighter aircraft could just go on the throttle and turn away from an attacker if they were pounced on during takeoff and landings.

The best American fighter at 20,000 feet and lower was easily the Corsair. 
It's combination of speed, agility, firepower, range, warload, survivability and adaptability were at a level that no other U.S. plane could touch. The Germans never saw this plane with the exception of a few that flew for the FAA. The Jap aces after the war ALL said that it was the Corsair that they feared the most. Had the early teething problems with the F4U been fixed sooner, there would of have been no need for the F6F. In a fictional dogfight between the F6F and the F4U, all the F6F pilot could do would be to turn defensive circles (Lufberry's) The Hellcat was outmatched in every other category by the Corsair with the possible exception of range but as the Hellcat could only carry 3 theoretical drop tanks versus the 5 theoretical of the Corsair that could then be erased. The Mustang was actually put up against the F4U in carrier trials and mock combat (1943). Three Mustangs had their landing gear strengthened, various other structural upgrades, and givin' a tailhook. It was discovered that at low altitude(10,000 feet and lower) the Corsair was decidedly superior. At medium heights(10,000 - 20,000 feet) the F4U advantage started to fall off some, but the Corsair was still the fighter that you wanted to be in. At high altitude(20,000 feet and higher) the tables turned and the Mustang was the better plane.

Brits

Throughout the entire war the Spit was the best fighter the English had and it was fantastic. Ask any German ace what he thought about the Spit with a skilled pilot at the controls. The Spit was a fine plane and a match for anything up high.

Krauts

Early on the Me-109 was the best thing for the Germans. Against the current model Spitfires, the Me-109 had some advantages, but this could be offset by comparative pilot skill and the location of the fight. The E, F, and G model 109's were superb, lightweight fighter aircraft. The greatest fighter aces of all time ALL flew this plane. Erich Hartman shot down 352 enemy planes with one of these things. That speaks pretty loud.

Later on AND down at lower altitudes with possibly some action at the medium heights, the butcher bird was the hot thing the Germans had. The Fw-190 was made to kill and that is what it did. Many German aces racked up huge scores with these things. A FW-190 with a good pilot and staying within it's flight envelope was a stout opponent.

Japs

The Zero up until 1943 was superior to anything the Americans had. Mitsubishi made most of Japan's single engine fighters and basically all of the later fighters were just building on the Zero. As agile as a falcon and having the range of an albatross the Zero was put up on a pedestal by the Americans. Had the Germans got the diagrams for these planes in 1941, things might of have been different in Europe. Later in the war, the Jack and the Frank were similar and an improvement over the Zero or Zeke. But how good these were are never going to be known. Jacks and Franks found things pretty tough going up against literally swarms of Hellcats, Corsairs, and Lightnings.

Rusky's

Early in the war the Reds were in deep do-do. A series of costly decisions by the German ground machine gave the people of the Soviet Union a breather and the momentum swung against the Germans. The Soviet Fighters early in the war were all lackluster 1930 designs and not wirth mentioning, BUT, later in the war the Mig-3, Yak-3, Yak-7, and some of the Lagg fighters were all excellent, even outstanding fighter aircraft. Sparking one of the greatest turnarounds in history. Some of the Russian types were so feared, that the German pilots were told to avoid them. Another note was that if the German pilot was shot down behind the Russian lines, his future was definately not going to be fun. After the war, some of the Russian types were made available to the Americans and they were absolutely amazed at their performance.


----------



## Soren (Dec 9, 2007)

> Some of the Russian types were so feared, that the German pilots were told to avoid them.



That is a myth however, a huge propoganda lie made by the Soviets, there simply was never issued such an order or recommendation. The German pilots didn't fear the Yak-3 or any other Soviet fighter at all, and they shot a lot more Yak-3's down than they lost to it, the Dora-9's of the JagdGeschwader completely slaughtering the Yak-3's whe'ever they met.


----------



## Sgt. Pappy (Dec 9, 2007)

Tru dat Soren  
Such claims were purely propaganda, though, those Yak's were a force to be reckoned with. The La-7 is IMO Russia's best. Though a bad candidate for high altitude work.


----------



## magnocain (Dec 9, 2007)

> Some of the Russian types were so feared, that the German pilots were told to avoid them.



I would have to say that was true. At least with the YAK-9's with a enlarged oil cooler.


----------



## magnocain (Dec 9, 2007)

> The best American fighter at 20,000 feet and lower was easily the Corsair.
> It's combination of speed, agility, firepower, range, warload, survivability and adaptability were at a level that no other U.S. plane could touch. The Germans never saw this plane with the exception of a few that flew for the FAA. The Jap aces after the war ALL said that it was the Corsair that they feared the most. Had the early teething problems with the F4U been fixed sooner, there would of have been no need for the F6F. In a fictional dogfight between the F6F and the F4U, all the F6F pilot could do would be to turn defensive circles (Lufberry's) The Hellcat was outmatched in every other category by the Corsair with the possible exception of range but as the Hellcat could only carry 3 theoretical drop tanks versus the 5 theoretical of the Corsair that could then be erased. The Mustang was actually put up against the F4U in carrier trials and mock combat (1943). Three Mustangs had their landing gear strengthened, various other structural upgrades, and givin' a tailhook. It was discovered that at low altitude(10,000 feet and lower) the Corsair was decidedly superior. At medium heights(10,000 - 20,000 feet) the F4U advantage started to fall off some, but the Corsair was still the fighter that you wanted to be in. At high altitude(20,000 feet and higher) the tables turned and the Mustang was the better plane.


Agreed. Nice way of putting it.


----------



## Crumpp (Dec 10, 2007)

> I would have to say that was true.



Do you have a source on this? Thanks!


----------



## AL Schlageter (Dec 10, 2007)

Crumpp said:


> Do you have a source on this? Thanks!



_"So good were these types [Yak 3] that in late 1944, Obstlt. Hermann Graf, JG52's GeschwaderKommodore, was compelled to instruct his pilots to "avoid combat below 5,000 metres altitude with Yakovlev fighters lacking a visible radiator under the nose"._

Luftwaffe Colours Vol 5 Sect 2 "War in the East 1944-45"

_the OKL issued a decree on 10 th June 1944 requiring all Luftwaffe fighters to avoid combat below 5,000m with any YAK fighter lacking an oil cooler under the nose_

A conflict of dates but......


----------



## Crumpp (Dec 10, 2007)

> A conflict of dates but......



I am aware of this source. 


It is second hand information in a modeler's periodical. Considering the volume of first hand information and original documentation I have seen that contradicts many Barnes and Noble histories, you can put in stock in it if you wish.

I don't put much in it at all.

By the time any pilot got close enough to identify whether or not the target had an oil cooler on the chin, it would be way too late. I don't know how much experience you have actually flying but good luck spotting a feature like that on another aircraft outside of engagement ranges.

I highly doubt Hermann Graf did not realize this simple fact.

I would bet the author misinterpreted a valid order that had nothing in common with the meaning he gleaned from it.

More likely he read a recommendation originating from Zirkus Rosarius which probably went along the lines of "dogfighting is not altogether recommended". 

All the best,

Crumpp


----------



## Soren (Dec 10, 2007)

Talk to any LW veteran and he will tell you that this supposed instruction to avoid the Yaks down low is pure BS and was never issued. 

Nearly all the fighting which took place one the eastern front was down low, and the JagdGeschwader made the VVS pay for every meter of territory, litterally slaughtering the Yaks La's of the VVS. Esp. the Dora-9 proved extremely effective infact almost invulnerable down low to the soviet fighters.

The later versions of the 109 (G-10/ -14 K-4) were all superior to the Yak-9 and La's according the pilots of the LW. A hard climbing turn, which demanded a good sustained turn rate, was a sure way out of trouble for the 109 pilots.

The LW pilots were never instucted to avoid fighting down low with any VVS fighter, and to further stress this it was infact down low nearly all the fighting took place.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Dec 10, 2007)

Soren said:


> Talk to any LW veteran and he will tell you that this supposed instruction to avoid the Yaks down low is pure BS and was never issued.
> 
> Nearly all the fighting which took place one the eastern front was down low, and the JagdGeschwader made the VVS pay for every meter of territory, litterally slaughtering the Yaks La's of the VVS. Esp. the Dora-9 proved extremely effective infact almost invulnerable down low to the soviet fighters.
> 
> ...



I'd have to agree with Soren (again); I'm no expert on Eastern Front fighting tactics, but I have read _The Blond Knight Of Germany_ several times, and it seems the majority of German encounters with the VVS took place at <5,000 ft. (1500m).


----------



## magnocain (Dec 10, 2007)

> Do you have a source on this? Thanks!


(The Aviation FactFile) Aircraft of World War Two


----------



## Crumpp (Dec 10, 2007)

> If you are looking for a _very cursory review_ of WWII's major aircraft (i.e., a page or two for each aircraft) this is the book for you. If you are a modeler interested in paint schemas for an aircraft you are building it is also good in that good ones are provided. If you are looking for anything more, however, forget it.



Amazon.com: Aircraft of World War II (Aviation Factfile, The): Books: Jim Winchester

This book just repeats the same information. It probably cites the LW colors volume 5!


----------



## Nikademus (Dec 18, 2007)

Hello,

been lurking for a bit, finally finishing this thread. Nice to see a bunch of knowledgable folks being able to look beyond paper stats as well as use them, yet still remain friendly in their debates. (well, most of the time..  )

"refreshing" doesn't even describe the feeling after all these years.


----------



## Rich46yo (Dec 28, 2007)

Nikademus said:


> Hello,
> 
> been lurking for a bit, finally finishing this thread. Nice to see a bunch of knowledgable folks being able to look beyond paper stats as well as use them, yet still remain friendly in their debates. (well, most of the time..  )
> 
> "refreshing" doesn't even describe the feeling after all these years.



I agree. A fascinating thread to read, even more so the fact its being discussed like gentlemen.


----------



## Ramirezzz (Dec 28, 2007)

Soren said:


> Talk to any LW veteran and he will tell you that this supposed instruction to avoid the Yaks down low is pure BS and was never issued.


that could be a BS from that point of view that in an aerial engagement you couldn't really distinguish between the different Yak types -they look pretty similar even on the ground from the nearest distance. BTW, their comparable to superior performance in comparison with the latest Me series was recognised by the Germans themselves - just read Lerche reports of his flights on captured La-5FN and Yak-3 in Rechlin in 1944.


> Nearly all the fighting which took place one the eastern front was down low, and the JagdGeschwader made the VVS pay for every meter of territory, litterally slaughtering the Yaks La's of the VVS. Esp. the Dora-9 proved extremely effective infact almost invulnerable down low to the soviet fighters.


you can't really talk of "slaughtering " regarding that fact that in 1944 there were about 300-400 LW fighters deployed on the entire Eastern front - in fact, the non-combat casualties and the losses due the ground fire were far greater . LW wasn't a significant force on the Eastern front anymore.


> The later versions of the 109 (G-10/ -14 K-4) were all superior to the Yak-9 and La's A hard climbing turn, which demanded a good sustained turn rate, was a sure way out of trouble for the 109 pilots.


La-7 was superior to the G-6 and G-10 almost in every way, and particularlyit's climbing rate was more than comparable. As for Yak-9 - it isn't correct to compare this plane which production started much earlier than the production of the latest "Gustav" version - it was pretty mediocre fighter, just an improved light long range version of Yak-7. It was easy to produce and to mantain, not to mention the Yakovlevs great personal ability to push his airplanes into production istead of more modern ones.


> according the pilots of the LW.


IMHO the veterans memories , couldn't be quoted as reliable sources - there're all written from a very subjective point of view, just as the russian ones.


----------



## Soren (Dec 28, 2007)

Your response is understandable considering where you're from.

The LW was by no means a small force on the Eastern front by 1944, and like it or not the LW DID slaughter the VVS in almost every aerial engagement. Esp. the JagdGeschwader's Dora-9's really handed it to the La's Yaks of the VVS, the not even the La-7 proved to be any macth at all.

And btw I have Hans Werner Lerche's book, and what he says is that the Bf-109G is both faster, climbs faster and turns better than the La-5FN. 

He makes no mention of any supposed superiority of the Yak-3 either, he does note it was a good fighter though, and it was.

The La-7 held nothing over the Bf-109 G-10 except a slightly higher SL speed, thats all, the G-10 was slightly superior in turning performance climb rate. A sure way of getting any VVS fighter off your tail according to most 109 pilots was making a steep climbing turn, no VVS could follow that. 

Now this doesn't mean that the La-7 wasn't a good fighter, however it is often grossly overrated, esp. by the Russians.

And yes, Hartmann did down 350 + VVS a/c, the far majority being fighters.


----------



## Ramirezzz (Dec 29, 2007)

Soren said:


> Your response is understandable considering where you're from.


hovewer, that doesn't affect my objectivity in any aspect - that means only that my knowledge on the airwar on the Eastern Front is much greather than on the Western))


> The LW was by no means a small force on the Eastern front by 1944, and like it or not the LW DID slaughter the VVS in almost every aerial engagement.


I don't quite understand what do you mean by "slaughtering" - please define it. During the whole year ( 1944), all COMBAT VVS losses were about 7860airplanes, including all aircraft types, not only fighters or bombers. 
From that amount more than a half (about 4300) was lost due to ground fire and flak - so their losses in aerial combats were just about 3700( again , of all aircraft types). At the same time, the NON-combat losses were almost 1,6 times higher - 12000 planes. So I don't see any "slaughtering" of VVS by LW at all. Their own pilots after flying scools were the force under which VVS suffered the most .
Now this doesn't mean the LW didn't make any troubles to VVS at all, but their performance esspecialy in the late stage of war is highly overestimated - the western view of the aerial combat on the Eastern front was very one-sided due to understandable reasons. 


> Esp. the JagdGeschwader's Dora-9's really handed it to the La's Yaks of the VVS, the not even the La-7 proved to be any macth at all.


The FW 190 in general wasn't deployed on the Eastern front in the great numbers - in fact, if you refer to the LW veterans memories , the soviet pilots always emphasized that the most dangerous german aircraft was not the Fw 190 but the Me 109 .


> And btw I have Hans Werner Lerche's book, and what he says is that the Bf-109G is both faster, climbs faster and turns better than the La-5FN.
> He makes no mention of any supposed superiority of the Yak-3 either, he does note it was a good fighter though, and it was.


I talked only about Yak-3 performance in Rechlin - the La-5FN which was tested by Lerche was one of the early versions with an old engine with a lot of flying hours already made. Then the gasoline type the germans used whas not the same which was recommended to use in Ash-82FN - (87 octanes against 100). No wonder it couldn't achieve the same speed as the serial models in VVS (100 km/h more than the La-5FN in Rechlin).
That doesn't wonder me at all - almost the same story has happened to the Bf 109F-1 which was tested in NII VVS in late 1941 - due to the wrong supercharge settings it couldn't achive the same airspeed at the high altitudes as the original model.
As for Yak-3 , this is a quote from Lerche report :
"My reply to his questions regarding the Yak-3 was that performance
measurement tests had not been made yet, but due to the extremely light weight of
the aircraft combined with the high aerodynamic quality and available engine
power, excellent climb and superior low-level dog-fighting performance might be
expected compared to our Bf 109 and FW 190 fighters. "



> The La-7 held nothing over the Bf-109 G-10 except a slightly higher SL speed, thats all, the G-10 was slightly superior in turning performance climb rate.


according to my sources the G-10 has a climb rate about 18 m/s against 18.3 of Lavochkin. 
As for turning performance, I don't have an exact numbers on wing loading of G-10 - the WL of G-6 was something about 200 kg/m2, which is 13kg more than a WL of Lavochkin. If you have the exact data, please post it.



> A sure way of getting any VVS fighter off your tail according to most 109 pilots was making a steep climbing turn, no VVS could follow that.


the same trick did Kozhedub in his La-7 and even in La -5FN - that all depends on which aircraft type you've encountered as an enemy.



> And yes, Hartmann did down 350 + VVS a/c, the far majority being fighters.


so what? you can't define the performance of the AF as such only from the standpoint of of the leading aces performance- in that way LW has clearly outperformed not only the VVS , but the RAF and USAF as well.


Sorry for my English - after all, it's not even my second foreign language


----------



## Soren (Dec 29, 2007)

Ramirezz,

Lets blame it on your english (Which seems fine btw) that you somehow missed these crucial points in Lerche's statement:

_"My reply to his questions regarding the Yak-3 was that performance
*measurement tests had not been made yet*, but due to the extremely light weight of
the aircraft combined with the high aerodynamic quality and available engine
power, excellent climb and superior low-level dog-fighting performance *might be
expected* compared to our Bf 109 and FW 190 fighters."_

After actually flying the Yak-3 Lerche noticed no advantages over the LW fighters. Also worthy of note is that Lerche never flew the Fw-190 Dora-9, Bf-109 G-10, -14, G-6AS or K-4, and therefore never compared any of the captured enemy fighters to these. Lerche only flew the Bf-109 F-4, G-2 G-6 Fw-190 A-8 to which all his comparisons were made, Lerche's job was afterall mainly to fly captured aircraft.

As to the state of the La-5FN tested, as noted it was very good, nothing worn or anything. And as to the fuel, well the Germans weren't strangers to the fuel used by the VVS and ofcourse they used the right fuel for the tests, they weren't amateurs Ramirezz, their job was to obtain accurate performance figures which were crucial for the guys at the front. There wasn't cut any corners buddy!

As to wing-loading and turn performance, well wing-loading is only one of several factors that influence the turn performance of an a/c. Infact wing-loading is very mis-leading as CLmax isn't taken into consideration, something which is needed in order to determine the lift-loading, and lift-loading is what mainly determines the instantanous turn rate of an a/c.

The Bf-109 features a higher AR wing which means a high CLmax L/D ratio, and its got much less wing taper. All this means that the 109's wing is more efficient than the Lavochkin's both in terms of lift and induced drag.


----------



## magnocain (Dec 30, 2007)

The f4u could kill all of them...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 30, 2007)

magnocain said:


> The f4u could kill all of them...



What a great well educated and well thought out posting!


----------



## magnocain (Dec 30, 2007)

:


----------



## Sgt. Pappy (Jan 2, 2008)

Don't forget thrust, Soren; thrust is an aircraft's friend when it comes to turning.


----------



## Soren (Jan 2, 2008)

Thats right Sgt. Pappy, and don't worry I aint forgetting it.


----------



## Sgt. Pappy (Jan 6, 2008)

Heh, I know. Just me feeling special again. 
And since you're one of the few masters knowledgeable enough about the Luftwaffe I can trust, any reason why the 190 did not utilize the leading edge wing slats? Was it something against Messerschmitt?


----------



## Soren (Jan 6, 2008)

Kurt Tank didn't like them that much, the extra complexity in construction wasn't worth the end benefit. At the speeds where many fights were taking place by 1942 and onwards the FW-190 would easily black out the pilot in tight turns.


----------



## helmitsmit (Jan 7, 2008)

Why wasn't the FW190 the standard Luftwaffe fight from 1942 onwards? Wasn't it clearly superior to the ME 109 at medium attitudes and more of a match against the allies?


----------



## drgondog (Jan 9, 2008)

helmitsmit said:


> Why wasn't the FW190 the standard Luftwaffe fight from 1942 onwards? Wasn't it clearly superior to the ME 109 at medium attitudes and more of a match against the allies?



The Fw 190, until the arrival of the 190D, was less able at altitudes that B-17s and B-24s operated in over Germany. The 109, particularly the G6/AS and G-10 were more or less equal to the P-51 and P-47 at high altitudes, whereas the Fw 190 struggled more, pilot being equal skill, at 22,000 feet and above.

And I don't think 'clearly superior' is the right phrase for the Fw 190 over the 109 at medium altitudes. Better roll rate, probably accelerated faster and much heavier firepower are all good things but the 109 was faster in level flight, climbed better and at a steeper angle, and in the hands of a pro could out turn the 190. 

!09 remained excellent throughout the war... and better against allied fighters at high altitude

Galland, however, DID recommend that all fighter production from early 1944 be diverted solely to Fw 190 and Me 262


----------



## SoD Stitch (Jan 9, 2008)

drgondog said:


> The Fw 190, until the arrival of the 190D, was less able at altitudes that B-17s and B-24s operated in over Germany. The 109, particularly the G6/AS and G-10 were more or less equal to the P-51 and P-47 at high altitudes, whereas the Fw 190 struggled more, pilot being equal skill, at 22,000 feet and above.
> 
> And I don't think 'clearly superior' is the right phrase for the Fw 190 over the 109 at medium altitudes. Better roll rate, probably accelerated faster and much heavier firepower are all good things but the 109 was faster in level flight, climbed better and at a steeper angle, and in the hands of a pro could out turn the 190.
> 
> ...




Correct, correct, and correct . . . .

I do know that the Luftwaffe tended to send the G-6's -10's after the fighter escort because they performed better at higher altitudes than the Fw 190, and would send the 190's after the (slower) bombers, since they had a little more firepower (especially the Sturmbock 190's). With MW50 and NOS injection, the 109's were still a match for most Allied fighters, even in early '45.


----------



## Soren (Jan 10, 2008)

In every German comparative test flight conducted the Bf-109 always easily out-turned the Fw-190, a direct phrase often used is that it got behind the Fw-190 in no time. Only pilots who didn't know the slats had a hard time turning the plane. 

The Bf-109 was a very good turn fighter, very much in the same class as the Spitfire. On the Eastern front one sure getaway tactic throughout the war for 109 pilots, if an enemy was on your six, was to engage in a tight climbing turn, as no VVS fighter could follow this. (This was ofcourse without the wing mounted guns) 

Now although not nearly as good as good as the Bf-109 the Fw-190 was a pretty good turn fighter compared to its Allied opponents, the Anton having a slightly better turn rate than the P-51 from SL up to ca. 22,000 ft. The Dora was markedly superior all the way. On the western front only the Spitfire could be confident in a good old turnfight with the Fw-190.

Now this having been said most fighters engaging the bomber streams over Germany in 44-45 were heavily armed interceptors, namely Antons and std. 109 G-6's. The few Dora's and methanol water boosted 109's were mostly tasked with protecting the interceptors.

Now the 190 Anton, with or without the extra Rüstsätze most oftenly used, wasn't in its right element above 22,000 ft, which usually was around the altitude which most interceptions took place. Above 22,000 ft the P-51 had the advantage, and higher up the P-47 completely took over. 

Now like Bill pointed out the Bf-109 wasn't as affected by altitude as the Anton, however above 32,000 ft the std. 109 without boost was at a performance disadvantage to the USAAF fighters. The Bf-109's equipped with boost had no problems individually against any fighter at any alt being much superior in maneuverability climb esp. all the way up to 7km (The Spitfire equals), but they were simply too few.

However because of the huge numbers of Allied a/c present over the German skies what the Germans needed were fighters with a very marked speed advantage over the Allied fighters, something which wasn't achieved with the std. a/c in service (Most of them just possessed equal speed). This where the Me-262 steps in, it was one of the very few German fighters who when airborne could with relative immunity attack the Allied bomber streams without fear of the escorts. If count the losses caused by aerial combat the Me-262 is second to the Ta-152H as the most successful fighter of WW2, a very few being shot down at altitude, while 95% were destroyed by bombs, strafing attacks or while taking off or landing. The Me-262's scored a good number of kills in the air for almost no losses at all.


----------



## claidemore (Jan 17, 2008)

I love this thread. So much good data and information, as well as some well thought out speculation. 

Just thought I would offer an opinion on whether or not it would be possible to distinguish between a Yak 3, with no oil cooler under the nose, and a Yak1/7/9 which did have a 'chin'. ( JSYK, I lean towards the yak 3 as the 'best' fighter)

Most every farm boy I know can tell you whether a pickup truck is a Dodge, Ford or Chevy at a distance of 1 mile, and tell you pretty close what year it is and how pretty the girl driving it is at 1/4 mile. Pickup truck is half the size of average WWII figher. Pretty easy to spot a bug deflector on the hood as well, and that's close to the size of an oil cooler on a Yak. 

Also, you often hear comments about noticing tropical air filters on Spitfires and Me109's, both by pilots and folks reviewing photos and film. Every experienced fighter pilot could recognize long nose from short nose FW190's, twin rad Spit IX's from Mk V's and II's, square wingtip Emils from rounded wingtip Freidrichs, sometimes even hump nosed G6's from smooth nosed G2 and G4. Yak 3 from Yak 9, no different. 

Sure, mistakes can be made, excitement, fear, poor eyesight, lack of mental acumen, (why would myopic mental midgets be flying? lol) but it is definately possible in many situations to distinguish a Yak 3 from a Yak 1/7/9 from different angles at distances far enough to enable one to make a decision as to whether or not to engage. 

Try looking at fuzzy low res gun cam footage on YouTube, you can often pick out different models within a given type. And unlike the WWII film footage, in realtime we all see in 3D color, at full resolution. So did the guys flying in WWII, and they were considerably more motivated. 

Oh look, there goes a Porshe 940 turbo......


----------



## Crumpp (Jan 17, 2008)

> but it is definately possible in many situations to distinguish a Yak 3 from a Yak 1/7/9 from different angles at distances far enough to enable one to make a decision as to whether or not to engage.



Hi,

This explains some of the physiology. It really is much more complicated than spotting an object on the ground.

http://www.mcchord.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-060619-018.pdf

This is a neat website which shows all the near misses. Check near misses on the left:

Flight safety is our number one concern. FAA regulations and flight planning are critical to a safe flight.


Here is some information on the Trafffic Alert and Collision Aviodance system. 

Facts are spotting another airplane in the sky is problematic to say the least.

Figuring out if it has a feature like a cooler outside of engagement ranges is fantastical.

All the best,

Crumpp


----------



## claidemore (Jan 18, 2008)

Excellent article about vision, but they fail to mention that outside of the foveal cone, the perception of movement is still very good, the 10% acuity outside the foveal cone is misleading. That's why they test for peripheral vision with a moving object. Note that 85% of MACs occur from an overtaking convergence angle, ie no discernable movement.

However, the argument about identifying features on a plane at longer distances, is really about the ability of the eye to use that 10 degree foveal cone to recognize details, given favorable light and angle of view of the aircraft. 

We're not talking about seeing details in the midst of a dogfight, but observing a flight of planes at cruising speeds, with a reasonable amount of time to make a decision, fight or flight (sic). 

The human eye can see details such as an oil cooler at distances of say 2000 meters, IF, the plane is in a sideways profile, or is well lit by light from behind the viewer. (actually you can see the cooler from head on or from under at shorter distances too.)

The object in question is an oil radiator that is about 4 feet long, 2 feet wide and a foot deep, which changes the shape of the nose of the plane, it's not like spotting a detail on a flat object. In fact, for those of us who are into the study of the Yak fighters, the first thing we look for is the oil cooler. 

I'm just sayingthat one can't dismiss the validity of the controversial order/recomendation/directive "to not engage chinless Yak fighters at lower altitudes", based on the mistaken assumption that it would be impossible to see an oil cooler or lack of oil cooler.


----------



## Crumpp (Jan 18, 2008)

> I'm just sayingthat one can't dismiss the validity of the controversial order/recomendation/directive "to not engage chinless Yak fighters at lower altitudes", based on the mistaken assumption that it would be impossible to see an oil cooler or lack of oil cooler.



Certainly you can, it is not a _mistaken_ assumption. You just cannot pick out that kind of detail *outside of engagement* ranges. That is a fact. Go up in the pattern and try to pick out comparable details on other planes. The average pilot will have a very hard time. 

By the time the average pilot can pick out such a detail, he is well inside of engagement ranges. The order is a contradiction in terms. In order to comply with identifying the oil cooler you must violate the order itself! 

It becomes a silly order plain and simple.

It makes more sense that a “dog fighting is not altogether recommended” was issued by Wanderzirkus Rosarius. That is the most common finding of almost all the tactical trials from all sides. 

It is much more likely that an amateur author for Squadron signal interpreted this as “do not engage” orders.


----------



## Crumpp (Jan 18, 2008)

> the 10% acuity outside the foveal cone is misleading.



Not really. The FAA is pretty savvy on this flying thing.



> they fail to mention that outside of the foveal cone, the perception of movement is still very good



You failed to read the article. This is the basis of a correct scan.

http://www.mcchord.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-060619-018.pdf


----------



## Crumpp (Jan 18, 2008)

> an oil radiator that is about 4 feet long, 2 feet wide and a foot deep



Here we go:


----------



## Soren (Jan 19, 2008)

I don't know why you guys are even discussing this, cause fact is that there never was any order not to engage the YaK-3 at low altitude, it was NEVER made. 

Try asking any LW veteran about this supposed order and he will look at you with a wondering face as he's never heard of it.


----------



## Crumpp (Jan 19, 2008)

> I don't know why you guys are even discussing this,



You know I was asking myself the same thing. 

It's not the only time on these boards either! 

Best Wishes Always,

Crumpp


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 20, 2008)

Crumpp said:


> You know I was asking myself the same thing.
> 
> It's not the only time on these boards either!
> 
> ...



If you wonder that so much on these forums, why do you post here?

Best Wishes to you too...


----------



## Soren (Jan 20, 2008)

Why start a fight? Geeeze...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 21, 2008)

My advice is that if it does not pertain to you it is best to mind your own business.


----------



## Soren (Jan 23, 2008)

Banned as in forever or...?

If so this board just lost itself a major contributor.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 23, 2008)

He was banned by a moderator for specific reasons. He had a world of knowledge but he chose to belittle people of lesser knowledge and not listen to warnings about doing so.


----------



## Hunter368 (Jan 23, 2008)

While I don't claim to know your examples (and I am not asking for them), there is a good number of people here that do such things on a frequent basis. You know who they are.

I hope this is not just a random act of justice vs a specific person or a personal thing, I hope it will become a more frequent event vs people who act in such ways vs other members regardless who the guilty parties are. Justice should be blind.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 23, 2008)

This is not the place to discuss these things. That is what PMs are for, or a specific thread where these things can be discussed.

A moderator made this decission and he is backed by all other moderators. We have a place where only us Moderators can discuss things and these things are discussed.

Again this is not the place...


----------



## davparlr (Jan 24, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> He was banned by a moderator for specific reasons. He had a world of knowledge but he chose to belittle people of lesser knowledge and not listen to warnings about doing so.



He tends to belittle everyone and his arrogant and abusive method is non productive. My biggest complaint is that he snuffs out participation by abuse of those who are trying to participate in this site. There are many young participants who have only learned about aircraft from games. There is nothing wrong with this as long as those with experience can tell them the difference between modeled aircraft and the real thing, which I think has been done admirably by most participants. This should not be done in a debasing and humiliating way. They are the future of aerospace and their questions and misconceptions should be addressed in a mentoring and adult manner. Sure, there are some brats, but they quickly found out and dispensed with

Strangely, I enjoyed, and was sometime highly aggravated by, the banter I had with Crumpp and was disappointed by his removal from a couple of sites although I can’t say it was unwarranted (believe me, I work very hard not to step on Lesofprimus’ toes!)


----------



## Soren (Jan 24, 2008)

AFAIK Crumpp has never been banned from any other forum than this one.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 24, 2008)

Do I have to close this thread. I said this is not the place to discuss it.


----------



## Soren (Jan 24, 2008)

Why so secretive? I don't think it will hurt anyone showing them what's going on - other forum's have banning sub forums for this actually, explaining the reason behind the banning etc etc... A good idea perhaps?

I just hope for the board's sake that it is only a temporary ban as Crumpp has a lot of knowledge to share (Just go watch the wealth of info Crumpp has provided on the AWF ACWOS forums)

Btw, isn't it std. procedure to first temporarily ban someone and then do it permanently if he/she doesn't get the message?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 24, 2008)

Soren said:


> Why so secretive? I don't think it will hurt anyone showing them what's going on - other forum's have banning sub forums for this actually, explaining the reason behind the banning etc etc... A good idea perhaps?



Am I speaking to a brick wall?

If you would actually go back and read the posts before, you would see that I said this can be discussed in another thread that you start or you can talk about it in a PM. This thread was not the place for it!



Soren said:


> Btw, isn't it std. procedure to first temporarily ban someone and then do it permanently if he/she doesn't get the message?



No there is no standard operating procedure as to how someone gets banned and to the length of the ban.

Again this thread is not the place to discuss it. If you wish to discuss bannings start a thread.

Since I was obviously talking to a brick wall or Soren just chooses to ignore my posts, this thread is now closed.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 24, 2008)

Just drop it Soren.


----------

