drgondog
Major
Parsifal - I need to think about it. The key question is what thrust figures and at which altitudes. The drag estimates are pretty much the same across the board.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Sorry here we have a misunderstanding! I didn't want to compare the RAF with the LW with the quality statement, I want to say that the quality (pilots and aircrafts) of the LW was much better 1941/42 compare to 1943/44.
Next I think your mixing things between early 1941 and late 1942 and you are a lot to optimistic of the year 1941.
I think that the RAF would have very very heavy losses, if there would be a day light bombing at 1941 with the estimated P51 long range fighter. The RAF had not the strenght neither the supply to apply 2000 a/c (1000 bomber/1000 fighter) to a mission, I realy doubt that at 1941 it could be 1000 a/c (500 bomber 500 fighter) at one mission. At 1941 the LW has absolutely the same advantages as the RAF at BoB at day light bombing raids, plus the Me 110, and all other "Nightfighter" could operate as bomber interceptor (Ju 88, Do 17, Do 215 etc.). There were more then enough numbers to stop such day light bomber raids and the butcher bill would be very huge for the RAF.
If you initiate such day light bombing raids at 1941 I think the RAF would be only a shadow of the real RAF at 1942, because from where you will take the capacity to replace Bombers, Fighters and Pilots?
If you initiate this szenario mid 1942 there will be much better chances or I'm inclined to your opinion, but if you initiate this at early or mid 1941 it would be a very huge desaster for the RAF!
No, but the thread starter specifically asked for airframe.
So, I'm not sure what's going on here...is this P51 vs Bf109 vs Spitfire vs Fw190 thread, or what?
Were the He178 and He280 advanced airframes, or just basic airfraes to try out the jet propulsion system?
Certainly the He178 was only ever intended as a research aircraft, and was no more suitable for combat than the Gloster E.28/39
Parsifal - I need to think about it. The key question is what thrust figures and at which altitudes. The drag estimates are pretty much the same across the board.
Good points, but still He178 flew 2 years ahead of E.28 and paved the way for the next 30 years of Soviet intake design.
He280 solved nose, tricycle gear layout and nacelles, later accepted by Me262.
Finally, 262 featured swept wing of low t/c ratio (a hint of supercritical profiles) and large amount of body lift, something planes like F22 extensively utilize, today.
Also, 262's aerodynamic testing and final layout was done in '41 (V1 had piston engine just for the purpose of actual flight testing), so it wins airframe contest of the age (for the most advanced design), light years ahead of competition.
No question regarding 262 airframe. 1941 it was not yet in existance except on paper.. and BTW according to the Lednicer paper (search on this forum to find copies), the 262 flat plate and wetted drag just barely under the 51.
As far as the piston fighters go, the situation is, well, difficult to assess and this is why I said no such thing as best airframe...
However, think you boys need to get your hands on proper figures before making conclusions, so...
Kurfurst - Your resource on Messerschmitt Bf 109 performance is a site you wanna look for Bf109 actual data.
For the rest you go there > WWII Aircraft Performance
(DISCLAIMER: Not sure if you're already using this, but I see data often being disputed, so this may help solve the problem)
the merlin 61 production was not started in '42? in '41 we have only prototypes
Ok, then...it's just that I saw some inaccurate figures here f.e.:You might want to assume that those sources are well known and extensively used by this group.
So, I figured original documents my prove to be useful.Some stats
Bf-109F 1150 hp 324 mph at SL
Fw-190A-3 1730 hp 335 mph at SL
Spit II 1090 hp 290 mph at SL
P-51 (Allison) 1150 hp 344 mph at SL
Well, you can't really do that.Why don't you propose your selection criteria and conclusions?
I am not sure about its immediate forebear, the Merlin 60, which from what little Ive read appears to virtually the same engine and had begun to be installed into aircraft like the Lancaster from early 42. I will stand corrected if wrong, because I am not 1005 sure. What is certain, however is that engine intended for SE Fighter installtion, the merlin 61 was delayed by bureacracy, not technology
But that changed nothing if we take combat power 395 mph or start and emergency power 410-415mph, no P51 B was ever 50 mph faster and a P51 A was slower and not 20 mph faster then a Bf 109F-4!
i never read of 2 stage merlin on Lancaster except the merlin 85 series, you talking of test planes?
Well, you can't really do that.
To this day, I'm not aware of a design that beats the competition in every aspect.
So, IMO the discussion would be more fruitful, should it address separate items (wing, fuselage, engine, etc...), separately.
Ok, then...it's just that I saw some inaccurate figures here f.e.:
So, I figured original documents my prove to be useful.
I agree, but its delay does not appear to be due to any technical difficulty. it was due Air ministry resistance. To me it looks like it could have been in production from the end of 1941
also whilst the Merlin 61 was not in production until the latter part of 1942, I am not sure about its immediate forebear, the Merlin 60, which from what little Ive read appears to virtually the same engine and had begun to be installed into aircraft like the Lancaster from early 42. I will stand corrected if wrong, because I am not 1005 sure. What is certain, however is that engine intended for SE Fighter installtion, the merlin 61 was delayed by bureacracy, not technology
P-51A (note: I took the data showing 1150 hp to equalize it with the other aircraft, as much as possible)
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/P-51A-1-43-6007-Chart-1400.jpg
Please show me the data you have that indicates that these are wrong.