Best all-round fighter of WWII
- Thread starter Oskar the Pilot
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
With the Ta 152 the designers exchanged the electrical systems with hydraulics. The boosted ailerons were to be used in the 152 but had been fitted before in the D-13 which had features of both the 190s and 152s e.g. the cockpit was a hybrid. Some Doras also had the Ta 152 tail.
Last edited:
Concerning the landing gear at the Ta152 you are right it was hydraulically actuated. As the D-13 had the Jumo213E engine too it could be that there was also a hydraulic pump fitted but would love to find a prove for hydraulic boosted ailerons. I'll mail Dietmar Hermann and ask, he is the expert for Ta152 and all Fw related questions
cimmex
cimmex
This is a good idea.
Wouldn't the Yak-3U have eaten Reggiane + 603 for breakfast?
Wonder how good the Yak-3U really was as it had a large and heavy radial engine The Fw 190V1 had as small a wing as the Yak-3 and so did the He 100. So if one would have fitted the Shvetsov ASh-82FN into the german machines they should have similar performance, handling and agility.
So why was the Me 109 no good dogfighter despite being such a light weight fighter? I guess high speed manoeuverability was hampered by the one spar wing construction with its large cutouts for the main landing gear thus giving it bad torsional stiffness compard to other fighter designs. At low speed it was said to be very manoueverable afaik. Maybe someone knows more about it..
Last edited:
The FW 190D-13 "Yellow 10" was found to have hydraulic boosted ailerons. For many years the airframe was mounted on the incorrect FW 190D-9 wings, when properly restored with the correct wings the discovery was made. Its mentioned in the book on yellow 10's restoration by Jerry Crandall who saw them.
Mwsserschmitt Secret Projects mentions that Messerschmitt though that a hydraulic servo might be neccessary on Jets like P.1101.
Like I said a few posts before.
GregP
Major
We're missing quit a few candidates. A glaring omissoin is the Lavochkin La-5 FN and La-7, both of which were better than the Me-109 and Fw-190's that were used in the Soviet Union war front, at least at their best altitudes, which is where they fought most of the time. The Soviets were cunning and ignored the high-latitude aircraft to bomb and strafe the German troops, so the German aircraft were FORCED to come down and fight or watch their own troops get killed. They didn't do all that well when they did. Definitely great fighters.
The P-38 is missing. Top USA mount, at least as far as the score of our aces go.
The Ki-100 is missing. It was possibly the best Japanese fighter ... or the Ki-84.
The Reggiane Re.2005 is missing. The Macchi-Castoldi MC.205 is missing. The Fieat G.55 is missing. All great fighters with short service lives due to the vagrancies of war.
The Hawker Tempest is missing. Definitely better than some of the listed competition.
C'mon, let's be fair and do another poll with the candidates well represented. Maybe a few more ...
The P-38 is missing. Top USA mount, at least as far as the score of our aces go.
The Ki-100 is missing. It was possibly the best Japanese fighter ... or the Ki-84.
The Reggiane Re.2005 is missing. The Macchi-Castoldi MC.205 is missing. The Fieat G.55 is missing. All great fighters with short service lives due to the vagrancies of war.
The Hawker Tempest is missing. Definitely better than some of the listed competition.
C'mon, let's be fair and do another poll with the candidates well represented. Maybe a few more ...
Last edited:
wuzak
Captain
You could list all the fighters used in WW2 if you wanted.
But does it matter? The poll is about the best all-round dogfighter and the leading aircraft at the moment is not one I would consider to be good as a dogfighter. And sometimes the reason those particular poll leading aircraft were chosen is because of their ground attack ability....
So, I don't think the poll is missing anything for leaving those you have suggested out!
Wouldn't the Yak-3U have eaten Reggiane + 603 for breakfast?
"I returned to Lecce, as this airfield was only slightly damaged and I tought it would do very well as a second string, in case Grottaglie became overcrowded. After a pleasant meal of spaghetti with the Italian pilots, I took the opportunity of inspecting the Macchi 205s and a couple of Re 2001/5s (sic) I found parked near the flight offices. The Re 2001/5 s were fairly new to the Italian Air Force, and only a handful had been built. They had a wing shape very similar to the Spitfire, a powerful engine and were armed with four cannons (sic). Having had a dog-fight with one of them, I am convinced we would have been hard pressed to cope in our Spitfires operationally, if the Italians or Germans had had a few Squadrons equipped with these aircraft at the beginning of the Sicily campaign ot in operations from Malta. Fast, and with an excellent manoeuvrability, the Re 2001/5 was althogeter a superb aeroplane. Tough I didn't get a chance to fly one, I did manage to fly the Macchi 205 and the Me 109G. Neither of these aircraft measured up to the capabilities of the Re 2001/5 series in manoeuvrability or rate of climb. (omissis) It is a pity, however, that no Re 2001/5 survive to this day, because they were fine examples of the Italian engineering craftmanship."
Group Captain W.G.G. Duncan Smth, D.S.O., D.F.C., in "Spitfire into battle", John Murray (Publishers), Paperback edition 2002, pag. 173-4.
And that was with a DB605, let's imagine with a DB603.....
Re.2005 weighted empty 2600 kg, Yak-3U under 2300 kg.
The Re."2006" would've weighted maybe 3000 kg empty. For about the same power. Hence my conclusion about the winner
The Yak-3 La-7 seem to fall in between Yak-3U and "2006" (and better than 2005), for dogfighter's comparison IMO.
The Re."2006" would've weighted maybe 3000 kg empty. For about the same power. Hence my conclusion about the winner
The Yak-3 La-7 seem to fall in between Yak-3U and "2006" (and better than 2005), for dogfighter's comparison IMO.
Mr GregP
a) When Germans had height advantages did not came down to fight but to bounce, as is the normal practice in every combat theater.Soviets suffered heavy losses this way and by 1944 had fighter patrols up to 6000m, usually american P-39s to cover their ground attack formations. La5FN ,as far as i know,could not use max power above 3000m. Mw 50 Bf 109s in my opinion were superior even to La7s .However ,How often was the use of Mw50 on the eastern front is a good question.
b) Soviet fighters on paper look very good. Yak 3 was only slightly smaller than 109 but was up to .... 1500 kgr (!!!) lighter in normal take off weight All other nations fighter gained weight as the war progressed only the soviets got lighter , and they claim that later all metal versions would be even lighter! What they sacrificed for such weight achievement?
What structural strength standards accepted ? What diving limits they had? Pilot protection? ( The japanese light fightres have been much critisized for their pilot protection)How much retained their performance in field conditions? What equipment they carried to be safe flying machines? They claim that were very easy to be flown ,easier than german fightes, but had no automatations at all , pilot should control all engines parameters, the same time german pilots all they had to do was push forward or retract the throttle
Everyone critisizes the Jumo 004 s 25 hours life duration but most praise the Vk 107 of Yak 9U and very late Yak 3s despite the fact it had a similar life duration and that, only if max power was not used! It also interesting that yak 3 would go from 1300 hp to 185o hp (vk 108) or take the heavy radial As 82 with almost no airframe modification or significant strenghtening ! Amazing achievement.
American Mustung units in Korea did not had problems with the yaks even at low alltitude. We must consider that evolution of german aircrafts was primary based on the needs of western front. Finally soviet test piltos judged the Dora much inferior to their own fighter, but their frontline units used captured Doras in action!!!! despite the fact certainly had plethora of fighters in 1945.( And the German reports appears the Dora to be very competitive against the soviets)
Even if you dont accep tthe above points you would accept that soviet fighters were very very specialized aircrafts and could not compete for all around best
G56 flew at 685-700 km/h with 1750 hp of Db603. Re 2006 calculated to be at 740 Km/h with the same engine(740 appears optimistic but should be somewhat faster than G56) Both should be very very strong dogfighters.
Re.2005 weighted empty 2600 kg, Yak-3U under 2300 kg.
The Re."2006" would've weighted maybe 3000 kg empty. For about the same power. Hence my conclusion about the winner
The Yak-3 La-7 seem to fall in between Yak-3U and "2006" (and better than 2005), for dogfighter's comparison IMO.
Even in vertical? Of course I don't have the figures, but is most probable that the Re 2005/DB603 could outclimb Yak-3s at low levels.....
Not to say that just a one second burst of the armament of Re 2005 could pulverize a flock of Yaks.....
Yak-3U has more power and less weight, so I'd say that vertical was the domain of the Yak. No doubt Regianne has more firepower
It's easy to see why soviet fighters were of light weight, especially when compared with US planes - the weight of installed armament fuel was maybe half of what US 1-engined fighter were carrying. That was partly because soviet airframe designers were hampered by almost mandatory use of the 1100-1200 HP Klimov engine for the better part of the war; the VK 105 was pretty light, though. So if we use a not so powerful engine, and want at least some performance, the weaponry remains at two barrels, with enough fuel for flying about an hour (with allowances for climb combat). The later VK 107 108 engines were of dubious quality until 1945, so the only engine that was both powerful and reliable was the M-82/ASh-82 series; maybe it was soviet mistake not to press on with the M-71 series (2000+ HP in 1941, flying in prototypes).
As for Re.2006 attaining 740 km/h with 1750 HP, that figure should be reduced for some 50 km/h? G.55 flying at 685 seem okay, 700 km/h is a t too high - Spit XIV was burning midnight oil to attain more than 700 km/h.
It's easy to see why soviet fighters were of light weight, especially when compared with US planes - the weight of installed armament fuel was maybe half of what US 1-engined fighter were carrying. That was partly because soviet airframe designers were hampered by almost mandatory use of the 1100-1200 HP Klimov engine for the better part of the war; the VK 105 was pretty light, though. So if we use a not so powerful engine, and want at least some performance, the weaponry remains at two barrels, with enough fuel for flying about an hour (with allowances for climb combat). The later VK 107 108 engines were of dubious quality until 1945, so the only engine that was both powerful and reliable was the M-82/ASh-82 series; maybe it was soviet mistake not to press on with the M-71 series (2000+ HP in 1941, flying in prototypes).
As for Re.2006 attaining 740 km/h with 1750 HP, that figure should be reduced for some 50 km/h? G.55 flying at 685 seem okay, 700 km/h is a t too high - Spit XIV was burning midnight oil to attain more than 700 km/h.
Last edited:
Mr Tomo PaukYak-3U has more power and less weight, so I'd say that vertical was the domain of the Yak. No doubt Regianne has more firepower
It's easy to see why soviet fighters were of light weight, especially when compared with US planes - the weight of installed armament fuel was maybe half of what US 1-engined fighter were carrying. That was partly because soviet airframe designers were hampered by almost mandatory use of the 1100-1200 HP Klimov engine for the better part of the war; the VK 105 was pretty light, though. So if we use a not so powerful engine, and want at least some performance, the weaponry remains at two barrels, with enough fuel for flying about an hour (with allowances for climb combat). The later VK 107 108 engines were of dubious quality until 1945, so the only engine that was both powerful and reliable was the M-82/ASh-82 series; maybe it was soviet mistake not to press on with the M-71 series (2000+ HP in 1941, flying in prototypes).
As for Re.2006 attaining 740 km/h with 1750 HP, that figure should be reduced for some 50 km/h? G.55 flying at 685 seem okay, 700 km/h is a t too high - Spit XIV was burning midnight oil to attain more than 700 km/h.
Yak 3 empty weight was 2105 kgr with 575 kgr Vk 105 1300 hp
Yak 3U empty weight 2273 with 900 kgr As82 FNU !
These numbers appears normal to you? In my opinion can not be exlplained by just reduced fuel and weapons
Bf 109G6,only slightly bigger,was 2250 empty. With the same armament as yak 3 and fuel for combat flying of an hour had a normal take off weigh of 3150 kgr. Yak 3 normal take off weight was 2692 kgr! I am very curius to find data about the structure strength of the Yak. I know Equipment,was very poor
Re 2005 with Mw 50 (1700 ps ) reached 700kmh /h .(But the airframe was not judged strong enouph for such speeds by the germans! It appears soviets did not have such problems with the wooden yak 3!) Db603 with 1750 hp and higher critical altitude should achieve slightly better speed
The numbers seem dubious, I agree, so I've checked out some other Soviet fighters of ww2.
LaGG-3 weighted empty between 2530-2600 kg (M-105), La-5 2600, La-5F 2580, La-5FN 2680. So despite acquiring ever heavier engines, the empty weight remained within few % of difference. So the figure for Yak-3U gained credibility in my eyes.
Further, Soviets were using far more wood (in weight numerically) during the 1st war years than at the end, and, for the same strength, wood is/was heavier. So the late models should be hardly gaining any weight.
I'd really like to see the good data for Re.2005 reaching 700 km/h.
The MW-50 would be engaged under the full throttle height anyway - the air is thick there - so the speed gain could've been 10 km/h, so we are still under 650 km/h. It took Bf-109 to have an engine of 2000 PS (Sondernotleistung) in order to achieve more than 700 km/h. Even the 109G-6-AS with 1,7ata (at 5800 m, MW-50 engaged, = 1800 PS?) was good for 695 km/h. And it was far smaller than Re.2005.
LaGG-3 weighted empty between 2530-2600 kg (M-105), La-5 2600, La-5F 2580, La-5FN 2680. So despite acquiring ever heavier engines, the empty weight remained within few % of difference. So the figure for Yak-3U gained credibility in my eyes.
Further, Soviets were using far more wood (in weight numerically) during the 1st war years than at the end, and, for the same strength, wood is/was heavier. So the late models should be hardly gaining any weight.
I'd really like to see the good data for Re.2005 reaching 700 km/h.
The MW-50 would be engaged under the full throttle height anyway - the air is thick there - so the speed gain could've been 10 km/h, so we are still under 650 km/h. It took Bf-109 to have an engine of 2000 PS (Sondernotleistung) in order to achieve more than 700 km/h. Even the 109G-6-AS with 1,7ata (at 5800 m, MW-50 engaged, = 1800 PS?) was good for 695 km/h. And it was far smaller than Re.2005.
Mr Tomo Pauk
1) The phenomenon of an airplane using heavier engines without gaining weight overall would be really unique. I am not refering only to engines weight. More power needs more fuel and stronger sunspension points, more torque needs bigger rudders,more speed needs more skin strength , higher speeds manouvers need more airframe strength etc. All these soviet fighters are extremely light for their powers. Unless soviet engineers had knowledges that the rest of the world lacked , they sacrificed aircraft qualities to keep weight that low.
2) Soviets sources made varius claims for their aircraft. Il2s outmanouvering 109s, Il10s outrunning late Fw 190 A8s ,Yaks and Las superior to anything in the world.I have several such books Reality says that most of these fighters were judged unsafe and withdrew immediately after ww2,when pilots were not anymore consumables .An Il2 was discovered some years ago and the anglosaxons reserchers were speechles by its extremely crude construction
3) Bf 1o9 K4 and G10 reached 700 kmh/h on 1.8 ata too .
4) Re 2005 was much cleaner airframe than G6/AS and cleaner even than K4
5) Re 2005 reached 650+ kmh/h with german built engine and german propeller without Mw50
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
