Best all-round fighter of WWII

[tomo pauk]

Hi CORSNING,
I never found higher speed numbers than 410 mph for the P-63C. Do you have any source? The comparable large wingspan does not indicate a good rollrate, is there a special reason for?
cimmex

Hello, cimmex, if I may:

The P-63C have had a substantially different engine, than the P-63A. Changes on the engine (relocation of the carburetor, now being between the superchargers) added some 2500 ft to the full throttle height, so the P-63C was able to max out it's speed on the thinner air -> greater speed. With WEP rating (plus water injection, or 'wet'), the increase was beginning to be felt at some 13-14000 ft and above.
Please note here (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-63/p-63chart-1400.jpg) that ram effect is far better harvested with the engines that were equipped with carb located between the supercharger stages (4000 ft gain for the engine power vs. altitude, in airplane flying at high speed, or roughly comparable with P-51 with Merlin), than with the 'old' engine, carb located prior the aux stage (1700 ft gain for the FTH).
The P-63E was equipped with again improved engine (able to make 3200 rpm, also the aux stage being run at more rpm - adding further 2500-3000 ft to the FTH, still no intercooler, but using water injection), able to make almost 450 mph at 30000 ft. One problem, though - too late for ww2.

 

[CORSNING]

Hi cimmex and tomo pauk,
Thanks cimmex, that's the graph I took the 190's roll rate from, and you can see I was being a slight bit generous at 165 degrees. Thanks for info tomo. If you look at the date on the graph, 5 June 1944, you'll notice that it was a little early for the C-1 and D. It's quite possible those two were calculated. But that's still one of the best graphs I've seen for P-63 info.

 

[cimmex]

Sorry CORSNING,
my fault, misread the graph (bad eyes) I think 165° is right.
cimmex

 

[renrich]

"Whistling Death" by Boone Guyton, The Test Pilot's Story of the F4U Corsair. This is the whole history of Guyton's involvment with the Corsair from his crashing the XF4U to after the war and his forced landing in the Pirate. Guyton used many, many test flights perfecting the ailerons of the F4U1. Vought believed that the ailerons in the Corsair were some of the best in the world. Guyton had to take sea sick pills because he spent so much time rolling the Corsair. It opens one's eyes about testing an airplane that was on the cutting edge of performance with a new, still in development engine and prop.

 

[CORSNING]

Hi there cimmex,
You have nothing to be sorry for. I am all the time misreading graphs and constantly correcting information. That's all part of contantly updating research.

Hi there renrich,
Thanks for the information on Guyton's "Whistling Death". I have been thinking about purchasing this book for a long time. I just keep finding other books that keep robbing my book fund first.

 

[CORSNING]

Hi CORSNING,
thank you for the link. I know this site of course but seldom visit it because of its not so well reputation. I really wonder why hardly one website follows the data numbers of this site. I may be wrong but this is my observation.
It seems to be that the P-63C had the best roll rate of all American WWII fighter planes.
BTW the Fw190A and D had 180°/ s at 260 mph.
cimmex

Thanks for bringing this up cimmex.
I have read a few post on this sight refering to Mike's sight as biased. Well, I have just a little to say about that. I believe Mike has spent a lot of time puting this sight together. I have read pilot reports on there were they stated their opinions. That's only to be expected. I have read articles there that are very interesting but don't include every single angle of every aircraft included in the article. And my answer to that is, Yea, so? I do not find the wwiiaircraftperformance sight biased in any way. Mike is simply printing excellent information that is from U.S. military and British military points of view, PERIOD. Mike is just posting the facts. Its up to us to get the most out of those facts by reading carefully and using our brains (sometimes that is to hard for me too).

Mike Willams has put together the best sight on military aircraft test reports I have ever seen. He has a variety of different aircraft information. In my opinion he should be commended for his efforts.

The only mild problem I have with his sight is theres not any VVS aircraft information. It wouldn't suprise me if he was working on it though.

 

[renrich]

corsning, know what you mean as I am always seeing books I "need" to have but my book budget is already sprained and I have books packed in the garage I can hardly get to. I have owned Guyton's book for a long time, being a Corsair lover. I assume his info in the book is from his logbook and it shows how individual AC can have different performance figures because there are a lot of variables which effect the numbers. His rolling work was in an F4U1 and the results were transferred into the production AC. I would expect that the production F4U4 would have better rolling performance than the earlier models because it had more power and was cleaner. Speaking of rolling I flew an L39 through two rolls, one left and one right. It takes slightly over one second to roll 360 degrees at 250 knots. I think the Corsair numbers were at around 350 MPH.

The Corsair control forces were very light and were consistent through all three control axis.

 

[CORSNING]

Hey there renrich,
Hummmmm, let me think....................Albatros, 288 mph, complete roll in just over a second............SWEET renrich. Nuts, Cedar Point in Sandusky, OH is kindergarden naptime compared to that.............sweet man, just sweet. Uh, how did you manage to get at the helm of that little Aero racer?

Hi you all,
This here part is for everybody, just so you knows. If I had to go into combat in early 1945 without knowing the condition of combat that I might wind up in, the F4U-4 would be my absolute first choice. Very rugged, maneuverable, fast, great climber and very adaptable. Yep, the Corsair. Against the P-63, if the Corsair driver kept himself from being drawn into a close in dogfight and kept his speed up, he would have an excellent chance. Uh, but don't slow your maneuvers down to the place where the other guy could get a bead on you with that 37mm.

 

[renrich]

A hit from a 37MM would be troublesome but one negative on the 37 for ACM is it's slow rate of fire and small ammo capacity not to mention change in CG when the ammo is shot away. To me, what makes the F4U such an admirable design was the fact that as the design evolved and the performance got better the airplane became a sweeter flying bird, by all accounts. In many other cases as the fighter gained more performance the airplane became a more demanding bird to fly. I have read the nicest flying P51 was the Allison powered one. The later model P47s had lateral stability issues. The late model BF109s were very challenging to fly and the Spit 9 was allegedly the nicest one to fly.

The very first F4U1s were a bit of a mess although potent Zero killers when well flown. They had very poor visibility, the bouncing landing gear, a disconcerting tail waggle when the flaps blanked out the rudder, the nasty left wing drop in a stall. All first models had some issues but the Corsair had more than it's share. But the Corsair showed how advanced and solid the design was when it evolved into one of the best all around(maybe the very best) fighter bombers in WW2 and yet the airplane became a real pleasure to fly for a pilot with adequate experience. I have a book written by a Navy pilot who flew the Hellcat, Corsair and Bearcat as well as many jets. He said of the three prop planes the Corsair was the easiest to become a good gunner in and in many ways was a superior flying machine to the others.

 

[CORSNING]

I agree with everything you just said renrich, but that doesn't explain the L39. What, were you on a covert operation and can't talk about?

 

[renrich]

I paid $375 for a 30-40 minute ride in one. Flew out of an FBO at Llano, Texas. I was in the rear seat and since I have about 10 hours solo in a 172 many years ago, he let me handle the airplane while in the air. Did a few turns, flew through a cloud and rolled it twice. Besides the 172 I have handled a number of single engined private AC in the air including a Stearman. That L39 was by far the easiest to maneuver. For what I did it is feet on the floor. The pilot took us through a lot of aerobatics and we pulled a lot of Gs. Fortunately I don't get air sick or sea sick. Almost the most fun I ever had with my clothes on.

 

[CORSNING]

Cool! And thanks man.

 

[rank amateur]

Something just struck me now. The first 4 contestants are specified (Spit XVIe, Fw 190D, P51D, P38L) while the other 5 are not (A6m, Yak3, Bf109, F4U, P47). That can't be fair.
Furthermore are we having a poll of the best dogfighter of WOII, or is this about the best dogfighter in service, say may 8th 1945? The fighters at the end of the conflict are always going to be faster than those at the beginning.

Just my 2 cents.

Chrzzzz

 

[CORSNING]

rank,
I'm not quit sure on what your exact question is. But still, I kind of get the jist of it. If I am understanding the original thought of this thread, I think it goes like this: The contestant had to be in ACTIVE service before the end of WW2 otherwise the F8F would have been mentioned a long time ago and we could all go home. In a way you are kind of right about the A6M, although at 110 mph I'm sure it would outturn any of the others listed. But in kind, the Ki.43 would have outturned it and the Ki.27 would have outturned both. But there is more to being the best dogfighter than turning circle radius. Dogfighting is three dimensional. Its getting from one place to the other before the other guy. Speed in a dogfight is vital, but not maximum speed in straight flight that an aircraft is capable of. While maximum speed is great for getting into or out of trouble it has very little to do with staying in the fight and duking it out. Just one more thing at the beginning of the life of all these aircraft, the A6M was probably the most specified of the bunch. This is all just an opinion though.

 

[rank amateur]

Hi Corning, It wasn't as much as a question more sort of a remarque. Don't take it as crititisme on your part but it seems to me that we're comparing uncomparible parities. Either Spitfire, BF109 and Zeke or Spitfire LFIXe, BF109G10 and A6m5c

 

[CORSNING]

Hi rank,
Didn't take it as criticism. Took it more as a very valid question. Oh, and welcome to the thread. If I understand the thread title correctly it is incorporating all and any operational fighter from the beginning to the end of WW2. That does give the later fighters an advantage in technology. But, the Spitfire IX of 1942 could out dogfight any P-51 flying up to V-J day. So could the Yak-3 of 1944 under 22,000 ft.

If threads were started with headings "Best dogfighter of 1940, 1941, 1942, 1943, 1944 and so on it would be a pain (at least for me). I could already see the days of research coming. Finding out when this fighter started active service and all that. That would be way too hard for me. I'm lazy at heart but physically always working. I am struggling at this time to put together a side by side comparison of the A6M2 vs. Ki.43-II on another thread.

 

[rank amateur]

Glad you took it lightly Lazynes is often underappreciated. All major inventions happend because some guy (who was too damn lazy in the first place) was thinking: this is to hard there must be an easier way

About these polls, maybe we should merrit the planes on their achiefments instead of on performences but to be frank, I haven't got a clue how to do that and besides It would be a lot of work.

Chrzzzz

 

[CORSNING]

About these polls, maybe we should merrit the planes on their achiefments instead of on performences but to be frank, I haven't got a clue how to do that and besides It would be a lot of work.
Chrzzzz[/QUOTE]

Hey, how you doing rank,
Meriting planes on there achievements sometimes makes there true potential obscure. Achievements of an aircraft brings in all kinds of other factors. Utilization, timing, quality of pilots..etc. In my opinion, when comparing A/C to A/C you have to take the metal machines at face value. Human factor can change the performance of an A/C considerably. Findlands Buffalos for example.

Your right about it being a lot of work to research/study the performance of an aircraft. To do it and do it right, you have to be willing to put a lot of time (love) into what you are doing and not get discouraged when you have found out that you made an error here or there. I have found out that on this sight there are many who are ready and willing to give you their knowledge. You don't have to do it alone.

 

[rank amateur]

Hi Corning,

Well I think it might be worth pondering about a sort of methodology for this. Nice material for a new thread don't you think?
About the Buffalo, I always thougt is is pretty weird that a plane that is thought of a a pure dog on one side of the planet is considered a marvel on the other side.

Chrzzzz

 

[CORSNING]

Hi rank,
Findlands Buffalos were not pure dogs. The were not weighted down like the British and an American's were. They were very agile A/
C.