1941: the best airframe for a single engined fighter

[Cola]

@drgondog,
Look buddy, don't be a child now running to papa Bell and mama Lockheed...you made calculations, made conclusions and made them both wrong, after repeatedly being advised not to do either of those.
You may even be whatever you say you are and that may matter to someone, but I don't think you understand the geometry of flight, being capable of missing the ballpark like this and that's what matters to me.
An experienced engineer, as you claim to be, should see what I'm talking about immediately, without calculating and particularly after seeing what guys that fly both types say, in the video I included a few pages back.
Now, I don't have time to check all of your calculations and logic behind it, but since you're capable of flunking basics, makes me wonder what else can you flunk...

But anyway, I'm not here to squabble, or whatever it is that you do and frankly I came here just for some data based on research.
So again, I'm sorry if I disturbed your "Mustang cult" (or whatever you run here) and thought you are smart, but now I think you're just trying to look smart...in any case so long and please stay out of my posts...thx


@ Shortround6,
thx for the input.
The data I've been referring to, are published in C.Chant's "An Illustrated Guide to WW2 Fighters", where he claims, the K-4's weapon installation has been revised by Mk103, as opposed to Mk108 found previously in K-2, which according to him, already had a pair of 15/151s in the cowling.
But yes, I suppose you are right and I'm getting more and inclined to belive that this configuration, rarely if ever saw operational use.
However, I'm still not gonna completely discount 70 years of time gap and possibility that archives are incomplete.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Joe told you both to play nice. Now you get a warning to play with. If you ignore a moderator when he tells you to cool it off, you can go and play some place else! It is there job to keep the peace on this forum, and they don't need children ignoring them as if this is a kindergarten.

Also be careful if you are going to get into a "background and living in a real world" pissing contest with Bill (drgondog), as he has the "real world" academic and practical experience to back it up. If you don't Cola, I would tread carefully.

 

[riacrato]

@Cola:
The myth about the K-4s armament is an old one and gets repeated since the 60s. Even Rall said in an interview the 109 had "15mm MGs" in the cowling.

However the truth is no primary source I know of lists the Kurfuerst with anything other than the usual MK108 and MG131s. I seem to recall there was a MK-103M (apparently shortened and lightened) being developed, but it never entered service.

 

[parsifal]

Cola give it up for a while man. you are treading on some well respected toes in this place. You now have the attention of the mods, and even the thinking pro LW guys are backing right away from your rants. None of this is doing your position any favours or any good. My suggestion is to cool it, watch some movie or something. Let it pass man, or you will pay a heavy price

 

[davparlr]

Hi, David,

The thread covers the 1941, so we should divide the airframes in service from the airframes in prototype phases. So maybe the Fw-190 should be the 1st choice here (it is in service), and along the prototype/pre-series fighters I hold the P-51 in the high regard.
The Typhoon features rather different wings vs. Tempest, a notably different fuselage, so it should be regarded as a separate entry - the late war Hawkers are way out of this thread. Typhoon was unable to provide the RAF with a fighter of greater performance over most altitudes vs Spitfires with two-stage engines (tick wing was flatly a wrong choice), the combat range was found wanting, the tail needed reinforcement. I'd rate Spitfire as a far better airframe.

You are right in that the P-51 did not quite make the cut. However, I tend to disagree with your comment on the Typhoon. I think that it kind of created a family of aircraft where one led to another that had great potential. If we look at the P-51 to the P-51B to the P-51H to the F-82. I think you will find engine changes, wing changes, and fuselage changes, even configuration changes. So too with the Fw-190. Maybe not so many with the F4U, but certainly engine changes. I remember the first time I saw a Sea Fury at Chino. I was amazed at that magnificent aircraft!

 

[tomo pauk]

Okay, I follow what you're saying.
My assessment re. P-51: the service subtypes could be regarded as two 'branches' - one is spanning from P-51 to P-51K. The another, P-51H should be regarded as a separate branch, with maybe 10% of airframe parts being interchangeable with the latest P-51K; it was notably lighter. The fuselage was new, so was the wing empenage. Luis Watt of the NAA stated that 'P-51H is structurally no longer a P-51 - it is a brand new airplane'.
The P-51s (excluding the -H), Fw-190s, Spitfires - all were incrementally better airplanes with new engines and small airframe modifications. Typhoon needed major airframe modification (wings, fuselage) to evolve into Tempest (engine being almost the same), hence my disagreement with your assessment of the Typhoon.

 

[riacrato]

I for one enjoy the discussion and would wish it to continue as long as new insights are to be won. I don't have the chance yet to fully understand everything that is written here but will certainly come back later if I feel I am prepared for it.

Anyone can make a mistake if he doesn't have access to the latest research, that doesn't mean his statements are all fundamentally wrong.


Tomo brought up an interesting point that: What makes an airframe "new" as opposed to an evolution. Is the Me 109 K fundamentally the same as Me 109 B, Typhoon <> Tempest, Fw 190 <> Ta 152, P-51A <> P-51H...?Or are all of these essentially new aircraft only benefitting to a varying degree from the fundamental (wind channel and other) studies of their ancestors?

 

[davparlr]

Okay, I follow what you're saying.
My assessment re. P-51: the service subtypes could be regarded as two 'branches' - one is spanning from P-51 to P-51K. The another, P-51H should be regarded as a separate branch, with maybe 10% of airframe parts being interchangeable with the latest P-51K; it was notably lighter. The fuselage was new, so was the wing empenage. Luis Watt of the NAA stated that 'P-51H is structurally no longer a P-51 - it is a brand new airplane'.

True, but the general layout was the same, the overall design philosophy was the same, and the lineage is certainly unmistakable. The F-18E is a bigger and more powerful and has more wing area than the F-18A but there is no doubting the lineage or the F-18A design philosophy.

The P-51s (excluding the -H), Fw-190s, Spitfires - all were incrementally better airplanes with new engines and small airframe modifications Typhoon needed major airframe modification (wings, fuselage) to evolve into Tempest (engine being almost the same), hence my disagreement with your assessment of the Typhoon.

What about the Fw-190D-9 and the Ta-152H, both which evolved from the original Fw-190. This is the adaptability that I think is important. Also, wasn't the spitfire wings modified by clipping and adapted to handle various types of guns/cannons? Wasn't the fuselage strengthened to handle bigger engines and exactly how close was the Mark 21, with new wings, to the Mark I?

 

[davparlr]

Okay, I follow what you're saying.
My assessment re. P-51: the service subtypes could be regarded as two 'branches' - one is spanning from P-51 to P-51K. The another, P-51H should be regarded as a separate branch, with maybe 10% of airframe parts being interchangeable with the latest P-51K; it was notably lighter. The fuselage was new, so was the wing empenage. Luis Watt of the NAA stated that 'P-51H is structurally no longer a P-51 - it is a brand new airplane'.

True, but the general layout was the same, the overall design philosophy was the same, and the lineage is certainly unmistakable. The F-18E is a bigger and more powerful and has more wing area than the F-18A but there is no doubting the lineage or the F-18A design philosophy.

The P-51s (excluding the -H), Fw-190s, Spitfires - all were incrementally better airplanes with new engines and small airframe modifications Typhoon needed major airframe modification (wings, fuselage) to evolve into Tempest (engine being almost the same), hence my disagreement with your assessment of the Typhoon.

What about the Fw-190D-9 and the Ta-152H, both which evolved from the original Fw-190? This is the adaptability that I think is important. Also, the spitfire wings were modified by clipping and adapted to handle various types of guns/cannons. I also understand that fuselage was strengthened to handle bigger engines. I suspect Mark 21, with new wings, was quite a bit different to the Mark I, more that just new engine and small airframe modification.

 

[tomo pauk]

I take it that we should draw a line somewhere, dividing the 'variant' from a 'new type'. Guess my line is more strict than yours

BTW, Superbug is a whole new aircraft (think we were there before ).

 

[riacrato]

True, but the general layout was the same, the overall design philosophy was the same, and the lineage is certainly unmistakable. The F-18E is a bigger and more powerful and has more wing area than the F-18A but there is no doubting the lineage or the F-18A design philosophy.

What about the Fw-190D-9 and the Ta-152H, both which evolved from the original Fw-190. This is the adaptability that I think is important. Also, wasn't the spitfire wings modified by clipping and adapted to handle various types of guns/cannons? Wasn't the fuselage strengthened to handle bigger engines and exactly how close was the Mark 21, with new wings, to the Mark I?

IIRC Everything relevant behind the firewall (except for the plug in front of the tail and the switch from electric to hydraulic landing gear) is the same for FW 190 A and D. Ta 152 is a different animal but again, many of its prototypes were actually rebuilt FW 190 As. If I remember correctly again I read the Yak 3 shares almost no spares with the Yak 1/7/9 line eventhough they "look" very similar. Certainly the general layout and basic aerodynamic profile is the same for all of them.

This is an interesting subject. By modifying existing airframes you want to a) reduce development time and/or b) keep parts commonality high. Your example of going from a standard Spitfire to a clipped-wing Spitfire certainly is in a completely different league in both a) and b) as compared to going from a Typhoon to a Tempest.

Would be great to have that kind of info on a variety of WW2 developments, unfortunately the naming conventions give away only very little. The Bf 109 is called the most produced fighter airframe of all times, but the same title could also go to the Yak, if you count Yak 1-9 (excl. 3) as one type that evolved.

 

[cimmex]

All Fw190A and D,G and F had electric landing gear. Only Ta 152 switched to hydraulic landing gear.
Regards
Cimmex

 

[Shortround6]

True, but the general layout was the same, the overall design philosophy was the same, and the lineage is certainly unmistakable. The F-18E is a bigger and more powerful and has more wing area than the F-18A but there is no doubting the lineage or the F-18A design philosophy.

What about the Fw-190D-9 and the Ta-152H, both which evolved from the original Fw-190? This is the adaptability that I think is important. Also, the spitfire wings were modified by clipping and adapted to handle various types of guns/cannons. I also understand that fuselage was strengthened to handle bigger engines. I suspect Mark 21, with new wings, was quite a bit different to the Mark I, more that just new engine and small airframe modification.

The MK 21 Spitfire is considerably different.

The thing is trying to find the difference between lineage of "design philosophy" and actual lineage of the airframe. Could you turn a MK I Spitfire into a MK IX or vs versa without the wholesale fabrication of new parts?

Spitfire wings changed more inboard in the area of the gun bays than at the tips. The tips on the standard wing were detachable and the "clipped" versions just had the normal tips unbolted and a filler cap bolted back in place. the extended tip nersions worked the same, a longer than normal tip was bolted on in place of the normal tip. NO change was made to the ailerons, the hinges or the leading edge and spar. the spar did not extend into the tip area on the normal wing.

How much does a P-47N change from a D or even an M?

 

[renrich]

The P51 air frame has to be it. Low drag, strong, plenty of room for fuel and armament. F4U might run a close second.

 

[Siegfried]

A very substantial part of the Ta 152H airframe was from Fw 190 production. The aircraft was extremely manouverable, handled beautifully and could do a lazy 8 over and airfield that a 190 had no hope to match. There was no tendency to spin or stall. It could easily out turn a P-51 except for the initial turn due to roll rate. Pilots had very high confidence even against Spitfires either griffon or merlin. It was well liked. It was slower at low altitude against the P-51 or tempest but not so against the Griffon Spitfire. The potent 2800hp takeoff power DB603N with its two stage, two speed with infinitely variable drive sitting on top of 2nd gear engine also had an intercooler would have closed of even this gap. There were also 12 Jumo 213J of 2600hp on the test bench. The BMW 801R with an intercooled two stage Four speed supercharger was also slated For the Tank. This very powerful radial engine was actually physically longer than any of the in lines.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The aircraft was extremely manouverable, handled beautifully and could do a lazy 8 over and airfield that a 190 had no hope to match.

I don't know what source you extracted this from but FYI a lazy 8 is a very basic maneuver that in no way will show that one aircraft is more maneuvable than another. It's like taking a Lamborghini for a test drive and saying how well it handled when you parallel parked!!!

Sure you or your source didn't mean "Cuban 8?"

"The lazy eight is a maneuver designed to develop perfect coordination of controls through a wide range of airspeeds and altitudes so that certain accuracy points are reached with planned attitude and airspeed. In its execution, the dive, climb, and turn are all combined, and the combinations are varied and applied throughout the performance range of the airplane. It is the only standard flight training maneuver during which at no time do the forces on the controls remain constant.

The maneuver is started from level flight with a gradual climbing turn in the direction of the 45° reference point. The climbing turn should be planned and controlled so that the maximum pitch-up attitude is reached at the 45° point. The rate of rolling into the bank must be such as to prevent the rate of turn from becoming too rapid. As the pitch attitude is raised, the airspeed decreases, causing the rate of turn to increase. Since the bank also is being increased, it too causes the rate of turn to increase. Unless the maneuver is begun with a slow rate of roll, the combination of increasing pitch and increasing bank will cause the rate of turn to be so rapid that the 45° reference point will be reached before the highest pitch attitude is attained.

At the 45° point, the pitch attitude should be at maximum and the angle of bank continuing to increase. Also, at the 45° point, the pitch attitude should start to decrease slowly toward the horizon and the 90° reference point. Since the airspeed is still decreasing, right-rudder pressure will have to be applied to counteract torque.

As the airplane's nose is being lowered toward the 90° reference point, the bank should continue to increase. Due to the decreasing airspeed, a slight amount of opposite aileron pressure may be required to prevent the bank from becoming too steep. When the airplane completes 90° of the turn, the bank should be at the maximum angle (approximately 30°), the airspeed should be at its minimum (5 to 10 knots above stall speed), and the airplane pitch attitude should be passing through level flight. It is at this time that an imaginary line, extending from the pilot's eye and parallel to the longitudinal axis of the airplane, passes through the 90° reference point.

Lazy eights normally should be performed with no more than approximately a 30° bank. Steeper banks may be used, but control touch and technique must be developed to a much higher degree than when the maneuver is performed with a shallower bank.

The pilot should not hesitate at this point but should continue to fly the airplane into a descending turn so that the airplane's nose describes the same size loop below the horizon as it did above. As the pilot's reference line passes through the 90° point, the bank should be decreased gradually, and the airplane's nose allowed to continue lowering. When the airplane has turned 135°, the nose should be in its lowest pitch attitude. The airspeed will be increasing during this descending turn, so it will be necessary to gradually relax rudder and aileron pressure and to simultaneously raise the nose and roll the wings level. As this is being accomplished, the pilot should note the amount of turn remaining and adjust the rate of rollout and pitch change so that the wings become level and the original airspeed is attained in level flight just as the 180° point is reached. Upon returning to the starting altitude and the 180° point, a climbing turn should be started immediately in the opposite direction toward the selected reference points to complete the second half of the eight in the same manner as the first half."

 

[davparlr]

Pilots had very high confidence even against Spitfires either griffon or merlin. It was well liked. It was slower at low altitude against the P-51 or tempest but not so against the Griffon Spitfire.

The data I have shows the spit XIV was very close in airspeed (quite a bit faster at SL) to the Ta from SL to 25k but with excellent climb capabiltiy.

 

[Edgar Brooks]

The MK 21 Spitfire is considerably different.

The fuselage was pretty much identical to the XIV; the main difference was in the ailerons, in doing away with the Frise system. In simple terms, the centre section was widened, thereby widening the u/c tracking, and the tips were cut short; if you take a drawing of a I - XVIII wing planform, lay it over a 21-24 wing, and slide it out slightly, you'll find the shapes are almost an identical match.

The thing is trying to find the difference between lineage of "design philosophy" and actual lineage of the airframe. Could you turn a MK I Spitfire into a MK IX or vs versa without the wholesale fabrication of new parts?

They did; N3297 was one of the initial batch of IX conversions done by Rolls-Royce. From firewall aft, the fuselage was identical, so a new nose, and a new pair of wings were all that was needed (at first.)

 

[GregP]

The P-51K is simply a P-51D made in Dallas, Texas (all the "K's") instead of Inglewood, California (all the "D's") ... except the D model had a Hamilton-Standard propeller and the K model had an Aeroproducts propeller. Other than the prop, they were identical.

 

[Siegfried]

The data I have shows the spit XIV was very close in airspeed (quite a bit faster at SL) to the Ta from SL to 25k but with excellent climb capabiltiy.

The Ta 152H with B4+MW50 Emergency power ie (87 octane plus ADI water injection which is roughly equal to 100/130 octane fuel) had a sea level speed of 580km/h or 360mph. This is as fast as a Mk XIV Spitifre on 21psig running 100/130 octane. The chart with this data is fairly easy to find 'einmotorige jaeger Leistungen. However the Mk XIV if running on 100/150 and 25psig boost could achieve close to 390mph. The Jumo 213E1 was meant to be upgraded to run of C3 fuel (about 96/130) which would have increased power and closed the gap. This was probably a 2050hp to 2250hp increase. Beyond that there were increments to 2350-2500 for the Jumo 213EB (enlarged valves), some 2600hp for the Jumo 213J (takeoff without WEP I believe) and 2800hp takeoff for the DB603N. The Ta 152C with its shorter span wings was designed to be more suitable for low altitude combat but I rather suspect the Ta 152H was going to show it could do a suprisingly good job of this.

I would have to concede that the Ta 152 was slower than the Mk XIV at sea level when 100/150 fuel was available to the Spitfire. I'd like to provide scans but am rather preoccupied with work to do that right away, will do latter.