Best Dogfighter Poll Revisited... (2 Viewers)

[fastmongrel]

I worked in Germany and it goes back much further than the two world wars, in fact back to before the Thirty Years War. If you had a mind to you could call the Napoleonic wars a World War .

Many contemporary writers did call the Napoleonic Wars The World War. The first truly global conflict though was the 7 Years War (1756-63) with fighting in Europe, Africa, North and South America, India and Asia.

 

[DarrenW]

After the F6F aircraft design started to reverse and never recovered.

Excellent Point!

 

[DarrenW]

,

Hello DarrenW,

Judging by the standards of the European Theatre, the FW 190A-5 wasn't particularly fast for the time.
From the standpoint of advanced aerodynamics, it actually wasn't bad. The closely cowled engine with a spinner worked quite well as compared to American attempts to do similar things. Note that the F4F Wildcat prototype had a spinner but discarded it because of cooling issues. The fairly thin fuselage used engine exhaust to make up for the cross sectional change at the cowl and was an idea that was later copied by the Kawasaki Ki 100 when it switched from an inline to a radial engine.
The F6F is actually a much better example of lack of aerodynamic refinement. It was a great fighter and had all the necessary features to fight its intended opposition, but ease of construction (such as with lap joints) took priority over aerodynamics which is probably why it was so slow for the amount of power that it had. No matter what Grumman claimed, the Corsair was a bit faster on the same power.
Note that in this test, the F4U-1D had the stock propeller which had issues. In the field, they were often replaced with the propeller used by the Hellcat and performance was improved. This was specifically mentioned at the end of the report.

- Ivan.

Thanks Ivan, those are very good summations and I agree with most of them but not all. I hope you didn't confuse my statement concerning the aerodynamics of these two airplanes. When you look at the sheer size and weight of the F6F and F4U one would think that such a small and powerful airplane like the FW-190A would walk all over them in ever flight regime but it didn't (power to weight ratio being one of them). That's because they were a combination of just the right aerodynamic qualities and power, no more and no less.

And it's easy to be deceived by the general appearance of the Hellcat, being that it wasn't graced with the sleek lines of the Spitfire or P-51. It's drag coefficient wasn't really all that bad, especially for a navalized fighter. There are many references that give figures which are in the ball park of other fighters of the era which at first glance you'd think would be aerodynamically cleaner, such as the BF-109 series, but they really weren't.

 

[Ivan1GFP]

,

Thanks Ivan, those are very good summations and I agree with most of them but not all. I hope you didn't confuse my statement concerning the aerodynamics of these two airplanes. When you look at the sheer size and weight of the F6F and F4U one would think that such a small and powerful airplane like the FW-190A would walk all over them in ever flight regime but it didn't (power to weight ratio being one of them). That's because they were a combination of just the right aerodynamic qualities and power, no more and no less.

And it's easy to be deceived by the general appearance of the Hellcat, being that it wasn't graced with the sleek lines of the Spitfire or P-51. It's drag coefficient wasn't really all that bad, especially for a navalized fighter. There are many references that give figures which are in the ball park of other fighters of the era which at first glance you'd think would be aerodynamically cleaner, such as the BF-109 series, but they really weren't.

Hello DarrenW,

Tomo Pauk has already commented about the power differences between the R-2800 in the Corsair and Hellcat as compared to the BMW 801D-2 in the FW 190A. The 190 weighs less but also had less power. I don't see the point of pointing out the rest of the differences.

Regarding drag coefficients and just aerodynamics, comparing to another contemporary, the Corsair, is better.
Both were large fighters quite similar size and weight with basically the same engine. The wing area wasn't very different at 340 feet^2 to 314 feet^2. Regardless of the claims of Corky Meyer and Grumman, the Corsair was the faster aeroplane as was also confirmed in this test report. I have come across memos detailing how the USN could not duplicate the performance and especially the range claims made by Grumman for the Hellcat.
The roll rates were not even close regardless of whether it was a -3 or -5 Hellcat.
When the same engine was again fitted to the F6F-6 and F4U-4, the Corsair ended up about 20 MPH faster which again suggests inferior aerodynamics of the Hellcat.
The Hellcat was in service at the right time against the right enemy. Even toward the end of the war the latest Japanese fighters were performing better.
At the end of the war, the Corsair remained in service while the Hellcat did not. In fact many of the F6F-3s were expended as target drones and guided missiles.

- Ivan.

 

[DarrenW]

You seem very knowledgeable about German aircraft, in particular the FW 190 series, and I've learned much from what you have said about it but I'm just not getting any new facts about these two premier Naval fighters from our conversation thus far which is fine because this thread is about the best dog fighting aircraft.

We must stick to the facts and the facts state that the FW 190A-5 had a better power to weight ratio, even if it had less power. That's because it weighed approximately 50 percent less than either of the two Navy fighters.The numbers just don't lie....

 

[wuzak]

We must stick to the facts and the facts state that the FW-190A-5 had a better power to weight ratio, even if it had less power. That's because it weighed approximately 50 percent less than either of the two Navy fighters.The numbers just don't lie....

Power is more important for maximum speed than power-to-weight.

Power-to-weight has more an effect for climb rate and acceleration.

 

[pbehn]

We must stick to the facts and the facts state that the FW-190A-5 had a better power to weight ratio, even if it had less power. That's because it weighed approximately 50 percent less than either of the two Navy fighters.The numbers just don't lie....

But science can make a fool out of power to weight ratios, they are aeroplanes not cars. Consider an aerofoil that produces lift with no drag with a propeller that is 99% efficient versus a wing made out of house doors and a propeller from a windmill. In an aircraft, for maximum speed weight is much less important than drag, the maximum take off weight and HP of the Do 17 bomber and a P 47 fighter were not far removed but the performance was completely different.

 

[DarrenW]

But weight does effect the movement of any object in any plane of movement. The only way to overcome a disadvantage is either add power, decrease weight, or improve the shape or surface of the object.

I'm going to ask a question about how aerodynamically clean the FW-190 series was on the thread which is currently focusing on that particular airplane. If it's at all possible I'd love to read inputs on the subject from both of you distinguished gentlemen....

 

[pbehn]

But weight does effect the movement of any object in any plane of movement. The only way to overcome a disadvantage is either add power, decrease weight, or improve the shape or surface of the object. QUOTE]

In terms of speed, drag is a much bigger factor than weight.

 

[Ivan1GFP]

Lol since when did this conversation become a debate about the virtues of the Hellcat versus the Corsair? And you really haven't told me anything I already didn't know about the arguments for and against the F6F. I've heard it all.

This conversation became one about the Corsair versus the F6F when you started claiming the drag coefficient of the Hellcat was not that bad for a Naval Fighter. You discounted the performance differences from the FW 190 because of the difference in physical size of the aircraft. The Corsair was a very good comparison because of nearly identical size and weight and power and very similar wing area which makes performance differences mostly a matter of airframe design differences.
If you already know tall his, then why do you keep trying to claim that the Hellcat was such a superior fighter when compared to other aircraft?

One of the issues we have conveniently ignored thus far is that if you can design an aircraft to have the same performance and perform the same mission with an airframe that weighs less, then you have done a better job. Yes, I recognize that the FW 190 wasn't a Naval Fighter so this isn't really a fair comparison either. Then again, the typical FW 190 carries significantly greater firepower.

We must stick to the facts and the facts state that the FW-190A-5 had a better power to weight ratio, even if it had less power. That's because it weighed approximately 50 percent less than either of the two Navy fighters.The numbers just don't lie....

Power to Weight Ratio is just one measurement. Usually it determines acceleration and not speed.
There is also Wing Loading and that typically determines turn performance.
There is also Thrust in relation to Drag and it determines maximum speed.
Unless you have done a lot more research, I don't think you actually have all the facts because they are not in this report.

So far, I have not seen anyone post weight data on the actual fighter variants of the FW 190A / A-5 and I have already told you that if you are using the numbers from the report, they are misleading because the folks conducting the test were attempting to simulate a Photo Recon aeroplane instead of a real fighter. Real fighters carry more armament and are heavier.

Take-Off Weights and Sea Level non Emergency Power
From the Test Report
F6F-3 Hellcat ---- 12406 pounds 2000 HP
F4U-1D Corsair - 11988 pounds 2000 HP
FW 190A-5/U4 -- 8690 pounds 1685 HP

Note that during this test, the F6F was carrying the same ammunition load as F4U (703 pounds) while its full ammunition load would have been 720 pounds.

From Rodeike book et al.
FW 190A-4 ------- 3985 Kg (8785 pounds) 1677 HP
FW 190A-5 ------- 4106 Kg (9052 pounds) 1677 HP
FW 190A-6 ------- 4186 Kg (9228 pounds) 1750 HP
FW 190A-7 ------- 4213 Kg (9288 pounds) 1750 HP
FW 190A-8 ------- 4392 Kg (9683 pounds) 1750 HP
FW 190A-9 ------- 4419 Kg (9742 pounds) 1973 HP

- Ivan.

 

[DarrenW]

The drag coefficient is not as bad as you and other Hellcat detractors claim it to be. I would go as far as to say it may well have well been better than that afforded to the FW 190A-5. Using a well established formula for calculating Cd0 and data supplied by both Tomo and yourself, I came up with a figure of 0.0242. Tomo's calculations weren't too far off with a Cd0 of 0.0265 for the FW 190A-8 and A-9, and the D-9 at 0.02426. Short of placing them in the same calibrated wind tunnel for real word testing, this formula is the only yardstick we have to measure the perspective drag coefficients of each aircraft in question.

From NASA's Quest for Performance: The Evolution of Modern Aircraft, Chapter 5 page 9:

"In spite of its bulky appearance, the Hellcat was a clean aircraft having a zero-lift drag coefficient of only 0.0211...."

Note that during this test, the F6F was carrying the same ammunition load as F4U (703 pounds) while its full ammunition load would have been 720 pounds.

That's only a 17 pound difference. I'm sure that would have had a huge effect of the overall flight qualities of the F6F. Anyway, the loaded weight of the machine under test was typical for an F6F-3 in an "overload" condition.

And the weight figures that you provided have absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. We are talking about the A-5 model that was present during the tests and not the entire line of FW-190As. I suggest that you post this enlightening information here:

FW-190 - How Good Was It, Really?

As anyone who has studied aviation history knows, the overall performance of the later A models suffered greatly due to the increased weight of added armor and weapons. That's why they required BF 109s to fly cover for them during intercept missions. They were considered "easy meat" by most if not all allied fighter pilots.

 

[Ivan1GFP]

Hello DarrenW,

Why do you at every turn continually attack the F6F as a credible fighter design, while consistently defending the virtues of the FW-190? I wish you could be as impartial as Pbehn, but apparently your love affair for this Nazi fighter far outweighs any desire to get the record straight. This has NEVER been a comparison between the Corsair and Hellcat. You're making it such so as to deflect the focus off your beloved aircraft, the FW-190.

<sigh>
WHERE do you see an attack in my last post?
You made claims about power to weight ratios and I provided some numbers so that you could make a more informed comparison. Sheesh!
You made claims about the aerodynamic qualities of the Hellcat and I made a comparison with the Corsair to illustrate how the Hellcat wasn't quite the aerodynamic marvel you believe it to be.
You are characterizing me as a "Hellcat detractor" when I really am not. These were just airplanes and all had their good points and bad points.
I just get annoyed when folks start making claims and conclusions that are not justified or just plain incorrect.

Wow, a whopping 17 pounds! I'm sure that would have had a huge effect of the overall flight qualities of the F6F. Anyway, the loaded weight of the machine under test was typical for an F6F-3 in a "overloaded" condition. If you are trying to imply that it was a "stripped down" version than you just experienced an epic fail.

I am just noting what discrepancies I am seeing in the report. I saw an odd statement in the report about the Hellcat carrying the same ammunition load as the Corsair and decided to chase down WHY they would make such a note.
In case you didn't know, the "overload" condition just means it has full internal fuel and full ammunition as opposed to the non-overload condition in which it would be carrying a partial fuel and partial ammunition load.

And the weight figures that you provided have absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. We are talking about the A-5 model that was present during the tests and not the entire line of FW-190As. I suggest that you post this enlightening information here:

FW-190 - How Good Was It, Really?

If you are making comparisons of power to weight ratios and excuses about performance based on those comparisions, don't you think it would make sense to actually have some more accurate numbers than were provided in the report?
The fact that you were making those claims clearly shows that you did not have the data to make the comparison, so I provided some data along with a note as to its source.

As anyone who has studied aviation history knows, the overall performance of the later A models suffered greatly due to the increased weight of added armor and weapons. That's why they required BF-109s to fly cover for them during intercept missions. They were considered "easy meat" by most if not all allied fighter pilots. I'm almost certain that the Hellcat would have had an even easier time of dominating these later, rather bloated, flying machines.

The fact that you are posting this as a "historical summary" and your posts in the "How God Was It Really" thread shows you clearly have less of an understanding of the history of the FW 190 series than you think you do. ....and No, I am not all that knowledgeable about the FW 190 either.

- Ivan.

 

[DarrenW]

I never stated that the Hellcat was an "aerodynamic marvel". I just wanted to shed some light on a common misunderstanding of the F6F's overall airframe efficiency. Looks can be very deceiving, especially in the case of this airplane. And yes, I agree with you that the Corsair was overall a cleaner airframe (with a drag coefficient of around 0.020). But again, this has never been a discussion about it verses the Grumman airplane.

The P-51 Mustang on the other hand had probably the cleanest shape of any fighter plane of that era but in this case it definitely looked like it.

Small grammar error on my part. I know what overload means. The F6F-3 under test was right at it's normal "fighting weight" of 12,400lbs. I don't think the subtraction of 17 pounds that you mentioned is worth being concerned about.

And I stand by my statement regarding late war FW-190As. You can't be loaded down with more armor than the original design allowed for and armed to the teeth with large caliber cannon and rockets and expect to stay competitive.

 

[swampyankee]

Hello Swampyankee,
There are actually a couple memos of the time commenting about how flight performance tests of captured aircraft were not a good idea because of the lack of spares and lack of ability to maintain the aircraft. The particular "FW 190A-5/U4" tested in this report was at best a "well-used" aircraft. It was captured April 1943 and had gone through testing in England before transfer to the United States.

Regarding the "Brilliant Fan-Cooled Engine":
It allowed for good cooling under all conditions (once other issues were worked out) even with a very close cowling and a small cowl opening. At low speeds, it would require about 70 HP to spin but at high speed the airflow through the cowl opening was driving the fan and the actual power cost was negligible.
Another "Brilliant Idea" that turned out to be not so brilliant was the mounting of the oil cooler in a ring at the front of the cowl. It made for a very low drag assembly but also proved to be quite vulnerable to weapons fire and leaking oil directly onto a hot engine did not usually turn out well.

- Ivan.

70 hp was probably 5 to 10% of the power available for climb. That's a pretty high cost.

 

[tomo pauk]

70 hp was probably 5 to 10% of the power available for climb. That's a pretty high cost.

70 PS at low level vs. 1930 for the prop for the BMW 801S. linky
Less engine power (espeially less RPM) = less power used for the fan. For the BMW 801D at 5700m (no ram) it was 1440 PS for the prop, 50 PS for fan, or some 3% loss.
Fan cooling probably enabled narrow cowling to 'work', meaning less drag. So it's a trade-off.

 

[Ivan1GFP]

I never stated that the Hellcat was an "aerodynamic marvel". I just wanted to shed some light on a common misunderstanding of the F6F's overall airframe efficiency. Looks can be very deceiving, especially in the case of this airplane. And yes, I agree with you that the Corsair was overall a cleaner airframe (with a drag coefficient of around 0.020). But again, this has never been a discussion about it verses the Grumman airplane.

The P-51 Mustang on the other hand had probably the cleanest shape of any fighter plane of that era but in this case it definitely looked like it.

Small grammar error on my part. I know what overload means. The F6F-3 under test was right at it's normal "fighting weight" of 12,400lbs. I don't think the subtraction of 17 pounds that you mentioned is worth being concerned about.

And I stand by my statement regarding late war FW-190As. You can't be loaded down with more armor than the original design allowed for and armed to the teeth with large caliber cannon and rockets and expect to stay competitive.

What were the equivalent flat plate areas for the Hellcat and Corsair? Coefficient of Drag isn't the entire story either
What value do you have for the Take-Off weight for the F6F-3 in "Fighter Overload" condition and what is the source?

You are certainly correct that looks can often be quite deceiving. The Spitfire looked quite beautifully shaped and sleek but had much worse drag than the Mustang. The Mustang Mk.II has always been one of my favourites.

Regarding the late model FW 190A:
"Loaded down with armour and weapons" is somewhat of a relative thing and things are not quite that simple.
Sturmbock aircraft were certainly loaded down and needed escorts, but they were very specialized types.
I believe Tomo Pauk replied to an earlier question with the FW 190A-6 being the best air superiority version and I believe his choice is pretty good if limited to the very common versions.

If you look at a version of the FW 190A-9 (which wasn't very common) with the outer wing guns removed, what you would be getting is an aircraft lighter than the A-6 but running a lot more engine power. There is also the FW 190F and FW 190G models which carried less gun armament but more armour. Without their bomb load and at lower altitudes, they were quite deadly.
Another factor is that the Emergency Power of the BMW 801D-2 series of engine changed quite a bit with later versions of the FW 190A.
These engine improvements could easily be fitted to earlier airframes
Basically the way to make up for added equipment weight was to add more power.

- Ivan.

 

[Ivan1GFP]

70 hp was probably 5 to 10% of the power available for climb. That's a pretty high cost.

Hello Swampyankee,

I did some poking around last night and what I found was a description that stated that by around 170 MPH, the fan was already driven by the airflow.
The optimum climbing speed stated for the FW 190A5/U8 in this test was 160 Kts which works out to 184 MPH.
Perhaps this was the reason why the best climbing speed of the 190 seems unusually high by comparison.
I believe the designers made some less than optimal choices in some place but they basically did their homework.

- Ivan.

 

[DarrenW]

What were the equivalent flat plate areas for the Hellcat and Corsair? Coefficient of Drag isn't the entire story either
What value do you have for the Take-Off weight for the F6F-3 in "Fighter Overload" condition and what is the source?....

I have been referring to Flight Test Data that was collected from 1943 through 1945 at the U.S. Naval Air Station, Patuxent River, Maryland. The average "Fighter Overload" weight reported was roughly 12,400 lbs, with small variations depending on the specifics of the test and that day's particular parameters. One test actually states this weight to be as high as 12,680 lbs. Again, there are variances but most references I have seen quote a normally loaded F6F-3 with a weight pretty darn close to 12,400 lbs.

By "flat plate" do you mean drag area?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

And I stand by my statement regarding late war FW-190As. You can't be loaded down with more armor than the original design allowed for and armed to the teeth with large caliber cannon and rockets and expect to stay competitive.

True but you're forgetting one thing, what was the primary mission of these aircraft? To dogfight and shoot those rockets at P51s???

 

[DarrenW]

True but you're forgetting one thing, what was the primary mission of these aircraft? To dogfight and shoot those rockets at P51s???

I agree with you that under this guise it was configured as a bomber interceptor but once airborne the added weight of additional armor and heavy cannon could not be removed (even the jettisonable rocket tubes left some drag provoking hardware still in place), which would leave them much more vulnerable to the accompanying escort fighters.