Best Fighter III

[lesofprimus]

As for the joke part, your inability to respond past that of one attending grade school is waht is funny to me.

U know, Im the last person here u want to get into a pissing contest with pal.... U shoulda done ur homework and read some of the old posts...

As for not reading ur post, its all crap and blah blah blah... Pump that sunshine up some other twats ass....

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

and we've tried to define the best fighter before, it all comes down to what you loook for in a fighter, but we're all agreed that it had to have seen a bit of service during the war, if we allow paper designs we'll all be spewing crap about German plans for jet planes that could hit 650mph with a 10,000lb internal payload and 4x 30mm and rediculously advanced radar and could turn on a sixpence all with 1,000lbs of thrust...........

 

[cheddar cheese]

Agreed...The German designs are interesting and as much as id like to belive the figures claimed for them its hard to, it would take miracles for them to match up to their claims...

My opinion on the best fighter is the Fw-190D...

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

even if the A is better looking

 

[cheddar cheese]

We aint starting this again The D must be better looking, everything beginning with D looks good, Thats why my name is Dan...

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

you know it's possible there was a compliment towards me in there but the A looks so good!

 

[cheddar cheese]

It does look amazing, but the D looks more amazing. Bigger is better...

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

then why is your girlfriend shorter than you? or is she bigger in annother way

 

[cheddar cheese]

Perv

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

come on i was expecting something better than that

 

[cheddar cheese]

Fine.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

Ah touché........

 

[Jabberwocky]

USAAF pilots had a saying "The P-51 may not be able to do what the Spitfire can, but it can do it over Berlin"

The fundamental tradeoffs for the Merlin he engined P-51 serise were based around the two aspects

1. The laminar flow wing

2. The requirement for long range.

The P-51 didn't ever actually have a true laminar flow wing. There were too many imperfections in the airflow; manufacturing tolerances, alieron joints and balances, asymmetric airflow from the prop ect, that created airflow turbulence.

It did have a VERY low drag coefficient. That means it was fast, had good acceleration, had good dive acceleration and controlability at high speed. The wing also cruised very efficiently (high speed, low fuel usage).

The downside is that the wing had low lift properties, primarily at low speeds. This effected a cople of key areas that are essential to a close in digfighter. First of all climb at low speeds was relatively poor. The P-51D had a maximum sustained climb of about 3300 feet/ minute. Fighters like the Spitfire, 109 and La-7 were all capable of sustained climbs in excess of 5000 feet/minute. So at slow speed the P-51 can't hope to gain advantage by climbing.

The second problem with a low lift wing is that stall speeds are higher. So while slotted wings like those on the 109 and La-5/7 serise and high lift wings like those on the Hurricane and the Spitfire allow good low speed handling, a low lift wing like the P-51s won't. Less lift means that the P-51 can't fly at as low speeds as its opponents.

The final problem with laminar flow wings is that they tend to have quite violent departure characteristics in the event of a stall, mostly due to high wingloading and rapid escalations of airflow turbulence. With the P-51 this manifested in a nasty tendency to drop a wing and roll over onto its back in a stall. While other aircraft such as the FW-190 and the Me-109 had similar stall characteristics, they were also lighter and and more benign in recovery.

The second requirement for the P-51 was range. The P-51 combined a low drag wing, with a very low drag fuselage/air intake combination and a high amount of internal and external tankage. So it could go a long way, at high altitudes and high speeds.

The Merlin engined P-51 serise rarely had to scramble and climb to 20,000 feet to make an intercept. Most of its battles involved it already being at altitude, escorting bombers to and from targets. It could provide support, chase off or engage enemy fighters and then seek targets of opportunity on the return leg.

Due to it's wing design the P-51 WASN'T a dogfighter. It wasn't an interceptor. It couldn't hope to be either. Where it did work was in the long range escort and air superiority role that the USAAF used it in. It ws designed to fly fast for a long way, at high altitudes, and fight up there. It had a heavy, low drag airframe with good performance at high altitude. The P-51 was the quintessential energy fighter. It dove and zoomed well. It retained energy well. It turned well at high speeds, due to excellent alieron and elevator authority. It rolled better than almost any WW2 fighter at high speeds. It had excllent all around visability. It had an effective anti-fighter armament.

Take the P-51 out of that high speed, high altitude environemnt though and it wasn't nearly as competitive. I couldn't climb or turn with interceptors like the 190, Yak 3/9 or the Spitfire. It didn't have the medium altitude performance of the 190 serise or the La5/7. It worked well in a very specific role. It was unquestionably the best long range escort of the war. But combat operations for the Merlin engined P-51s were relatively narrow, a short period of the war and a defined role for most of that. Aircraft like the 109 and Spitfire solidered on through the war and remianed competitive, even superlative, in areas where the P-51 was not.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

they're very good points and a great way to sum it up.........

 

[syscom3]

Id say that if the Mustang pilot kept his speed up and thus to his advantage, then he was going to rule the skys. I dont think any high scoring ace has gotten his kills by fighting to his enemies strenghts.

 

[wmaxt]

Id say that if the Mustang pilot kept his speed up and thus to his advantage, then he was going to rule the skys. I dont think any high scoring ace has gotten his kills by fighting to his enemies strenghts.

The first statement is correct in the proper context ie. with altitudes between 20k and 30k and teamwork. That statement also applies to the P-38, Fw-190 and Spitfire except they have a much wider altitude limitation.

The second statement is absoultly true and in the heat of the discussion we all forget that every plane here has its best altitudes as well as particular strengthes.

The Mustang was at its best in the ETO where it flew/fought at its best altitude and with a wingman, fought very effectively.

wmaxt

 

[Erich]

JonG>

the result of simply no gas is all accredited to the heavy bomber campaign and not fighters of either the RAF or US AF. yes the spits and Jugs, P-51's ripped up the field but that was stationary craft for the most part, they did not bomb the oil facilities that the heavies accomplished....

 

[JonJGoldberg]

lesofprimus: I see my quotes all over your postings, but none that confirm what you say I said about the German pilots. As for pissing contests, stoped that around 10.

As for the rest of you, seems we are having trouble deciding what may be the best fighter of WW2. I gave a shot at creating a comparison chart. My plane didn't win. Check it out. Maybe we can fix it. It should help us all start to be able to decide this 1once and for all...

 

[Jabberwocky]

lesofprimus: I see my quotes all over your postings, but none that confirm what you say I said about the German pilots. As for pissing contests, stoped that around 10.

As for the rest of you, seems we are having trouble deciding what may be the best fighter of WW2. I gave a shot at creating a comparison chart. My plane didn't win. Check it out. Maybe we can fix it. It should help us all start to be able to decide this 1once and for all...

Great work. An interesting comparison and thumbs up for doing it.

Just a couple of points

1. The P-38s top speed was 440 mph at 25,700 feet with Allison V-1710-111/113 at 64 inches of manifold pressure. The common figure of 420/421 is for the J with Allison V-1710-89/91s at 60 Hg. The 414 mph for the P-38L is for the Allison V-1710s running at 60" Hg. They were cleared by Allison for 64" of manifold in late 1943, the 111/113 engines recieving a new quill shaft and other reinforcements, making them better able to handle the higher power. It was never 'offical' in the written in stone sense, but it was the most common rating for P-38Ls on 110/145 octane.

2. The Fw-190D could do 366-369 mph at sea level with MW-50 boost, fitted from the second production airframe and used from December 1944. At full emergency power with MW-50 some Doras recorded 379 mph at sea level. 366-369 would be typical of a service example. The 356 mph figure is for full combat power, but not full emergency power.

3. All P-47D-27s or later were operationally limited to 64 inches mainfold producing some 2600 hp with the P&W 2800-59. Top speed was 441-444 mph at 30,000 feet.

4. The P-38J, L manual gives the P-38 a placard dive limit rating of 480mph True Airspeed (420 IAS). The manual states "Do not exceed placard limits more than 20mph with dive recovery flaps extended. Carlo Popps excellent P-38 article gives the dive redline at 500 mph.

5. What weights are the slow speed stall limits given for? For example the P-38 had a slow speed stall limit of 94 mph at 15,000 lbs and 105 mph at 19,000 lbs, both with flaps up. 'Dirty' stall speed (flaps and gear down) is noted as 69 mph and 78 mph respectively .

6. Ammunition for the Mg151/20s in the FW-190 was 200 rpg in the wing guns and 475 rpg for the Mg131 in the nose. At your reduced RoF due to synch, firing duration should be about 22.5 seconds for the cannon and 43 seconds for the nose guns.

I also have a few issues with your gun power assesments, but that is a seperate and entirely complex enough issue on its own and I won't hold you to it.

Bonus points could also be handed out for gyroscopic gunsites fitted to US, British and German fighters.

You could also look at factors such as sustained rate of climb, time to height, acceleration, power to weight, airframe drag.

Other factors to think about when judging a fighter include stick control forces, performance between 10-20,000 feet (where the majority of WW2 aviation actions took place), stall characteristics (istall indication, benign or violent, "mush" or wingdrop, control surface response ect), stall recovery characteristics (good or poor), armour protection/vulnerabilities, cockpit visibility, pilot workload (engine management, trim, instrument positioning) cockpit size and layout, sighting view (degrees of deflection over nose), takeoff and landing characteristics, dive acceleration, glide path, external ordanance options, duration allowable in WER/overboost ect and so on.

It would be interesting to see what happened if you added a Spitfire XIV, XXi or Tempest V to that list. Similarly, a Ki-84 or a La-7.

 

[Parmigiano]

Here my first notes

On 'Bonus' category :
-Credit the 190D for the automatic throttle/pitch/mixture management (kommandogerat)
-Credit the P51D (and P47?) for all-round vision canopy
-Credit smaller aircrafts for lower target area (or penalize the bigger ones)

On weapons: FW190 should be credited for the '4 in line weapons', since all her guns can be considered nose mounted (no need for horizontal harmonization, like the P38) It's the balance for the disadvantage of having them synchronized
Also the 25% penalty for synchro is probably exxagerate:
FW190A used to have 2 MG151 sync + 2 MG151 wing mounted: when they deleted 2 guns in the D, if they decided to keep the sync guns is likely because they were more effective than the outer ones, in spite of the lower rate of fire.
The same logic was apllied with the Bf109, who moved from 2x20mm in the wings (E version) to one in the hub.

Congratulations for this big work, have no time now to properly read/analyze all parameters, maybe in the weekend...
bye