Best Fighter III

[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

 

[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

 

[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

 

[Gnomey]

Nice work Jon. Parmigiano seems to think it is good enough to post 4 times!

 

[Parmigiano]

... well, I actually have no clue of what happened.. I've edited a few times with the 'preview' option but I swear I've clicked 'submit' only once....

 

[syscom3]

I think someone here several weeks ago, pointed out that US (and Brit?) pilots had a functionally working "G" suit.

That should be a bonus for the allied aircraft as the pilots could use their planes to their capabilities without passing out.

 

[JonJGoldberg]

Jabberwocky:
"The P-38s top speed was 440 mph …" You are correct… I had opened the wrong tables, indeed P-38J… I couldn't find some data points that I had for other aircraft, info I did find within the 'J' tables. Killer Pick up. I will change the speed.

"The Fw-190D could do 366-369 mph at sea level with MW-50 boost..." Wow! Again, you are correct, however all SL speeds are without boost, the 360 figure is for the '38L. I had a hard time wrestling this issue, so I gave boosted at altitude and not at sea level, as all info I've seen with regard to MW boosting is that it is tuned for 'max' results at various altitudes, depending on the engine production block, or with others 'field' tuning is possible. If you and others feel this important, and I can get data, as to weather or not tuning was or was not available, we can update the charts with this feature in the 'Bonus' section.

"All P-47D-27s or later... Top speed was 441-444 mph at 30,000 feet." No more praise for you, I'm running out of cookies. 'P-47D-23'. I am missing lots of data for later models.

"The P-38J, L manual gives the P-38 a placard dive limit rating of 480mph…" That's it, you're the man! This was the data I needed, and borrowed from the J, not including the error above. I will change the speed, and note your input as an info source.

"What weights are the slow speed stall limits given for?" Great question. I had a really hard time acquiring flight performance data for the FW-190-D. Turning speed is not easily found for this, or any other aircraft, and rare German aircraft... So I searched 'sim' sites. I've seen at some 'sim' sites a '1% air file', or what they refer to as 'certified competition air files' for MS 2k4. I found 3 versions, none for MS 2K4, but there was for CFS-3, MS 2K2, and CFS-2 done by a fellow named Jerry Beckwith. He built these performance charts based on 'dry weight'. Upon looking at the data, and comparing it with data I have, they seemed to jive. To further test I downloaded the -38, -47, -51. The data on these tables, also dry weight matched what I could acquire. To give the same baseline to all competitors, at least for now, or until I can get more accurate data, I need to see if the comparison might work, all performance data with regard to the "Horizontal Limits" were obtained from Jerry's tables. I'll change them if you and others are able to provide either; 1-a single source of info for all (OK most) data; Or 2-Approved data is provided for me (I'll research as well, no prob).

"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." The Formula I used was {(((475/(0.75*15))*2)+((200/(0.75*12))*2))*0.1}. I will be changing this as I have found new info regarding 'synchronizers' and their implementation. It will become {(((475/(0.9*15))*2)+((200/(0.9*12))*2))*0.1}. This is due to information found within Anthony G Williams Emmanuel Gustin's extensive documentation that accompanies their table. Within their work I found the following this morning, I'm home, sick; "Where the rate of fire for the synchronized installation is not known, a reduction of 25% of the unsynchronized rate of fire has to be assumed. An exception is made for the MG 131 and MG 151/20 with their electrical priming systems (10%) and the big Browning .50 M2, Ho-103, and Ho-5 (40%), as these weapons reportedly suffered badly when synchronized." This information will be added to my comparison chart. These guys are fixated on the guns, ballistics our fixations carry. The paper was a draft rating the relative effectiveness of the weapons in the table, I edited out parts not related to my table (including the weight of the gun efficency of the guns, relative to ROF projectile energies) copied the rest. I write this as you, and others have expressed issues with the Gun chart. Please find info related to this here >> http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/index.htm

"Bonus points could also be handed out for gyroscopic gunsites fitted to US, British and German fighters" I don't think so, for this 'test' comparison, but I could be persuaded. I intended the bonus section to contain 'special' features that aid in combat, but don't appear in performance tables, always; things that might be unique to one or two in the comparison, and obviously effective tools. Although I think the gun site you mention is something that should appear in a comparison between aircraft containing gun sites of differing technologies, or generations. Maybe I'm not thinking broadly enough, and you're foreseeing a day when all aircraft appear in this chart.

"Other factors to think about when judging a fighter include stick control forces…" Great; but don't give me only categories; try to give me an idea on how to 'weight' them in relative importance (points), as compared to turning speed for example, and how to acquire the data.

"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" I'd love to. Are you willing to help?

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)"
I'm going to add the throttle/pitch/mixture management (kommandogerat) to the bonus, as I feel this, like recovery flaps, or twin engines to be of significance (You do realize that the '51, not the '190 will be at the bottom, so I do this at great personal cost, maybe 4 points, kidding, it's a 5 pointer). As for the 'bubble' canopy, and target area, it's not a bad idea, I agree to its relevance, but I have a slight problem on just how to properly assess that, especially if we are to consider a P-38 or a Fw-189V1b, on both counts; I'm open to suggestions.

"On weapons: FW190 should be credited for the '4 in line weapons'…" I agree, sorry about that.

"Also the 25% penalty for synchro is probably exaggerate" Not at all, it seems I made a good 1st guess, but there will be changes, see above within my replies to Jabberwocky (it starts with… "Ammunition for the Mg151/).

syscom3:
Thanks for your help.
"I think someone here several weeks ago, pointed out that US (and Brit?) pilots had a functionally working "G" suit." I sure do hope so, my '51 is needing help with this table.


To all, thanks! PS >>> I would also like some suggestions on how to properly insert failure rates, like Tiffy engines. Maybe I should add a Penilty Section. What do you think.

 

[syscom3]

One question thats been nagging me for a few weeks, is how all the planes differed from their peak performance when fully loaded with fuel and ammo, as compared when they are lightened from low fuel and low ammo. Did their performce change much?

Another question....... in the quick maneuvers in a dogfight, did the fuel in the tanks slosh around enough to make the plane unstable or wobble?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

One question thats been nagging me for a few weeks, is how all the planes differed from their peak performance when fully loaded with fuel and ammo, as compared when they are lightened from low fuel and low ammo. Did their performce change much?

They would change and a pilot would notice a difference to a point....

Another question....... in the quick maneuvers in a dogfight, did the fuel in the tanks slosh around enough to make the plane unstable or wobble?

Aircraft fuel tanks either have baffles to prevent this or the individual fuel cells are designed so "sloshing" is kept to a minimum.

 

[JonJGoldberg]

syscom3:
"One question thats been nagging me for a few weeks, is how all the planes differed from their peak performance when fully loaded with fuel and ammo, as compared when they are lightened from low fuel and low ammo. Did their performce change much?"

Yes, because of where the weight is changing; so one flaw with these charts may be just that. However, a pilot who is capable will not change the planes center of gravity, unless he has no choice, or it is of benefit. Many 51 pilots used fuel in the aft tanks first, lighting the tail for 'dog-fighting' for example. Another example, aircraft, such as the '47D/ 'Fw-190 with no wing tanks have roll rates unaffected by their use of gas; '38s '51s with wing tanks must pay attention to their relative levels. Of course the drawback to this is range. However please consider the following, these tables assume the weather is beautiful, and there is no wind or rain. Yes each aircraft reacts differently to cross winds, relative humidity etc. We must start somewhere, or argue forever.

"Another question....... in the quick maneuvers in a dogfight, did the fuel in the tanks slosh around enough to make the plane unstable or wobble…"

LOL, they had baffles to minimize this, but yes I guess the tanks sloshed around, I would imagine this being a (small) problem at only at about ½ tank or slightly above, where the fuels mass sill matters and there is room in the tank to move around.

 

[syscom3]

the only authentic WW2 fuel cell Ive seen was at Chino. It was back in the 80's and they had their SBD torn apart and had the pieces on display. The fuel tank needed repairs and was split open. I didnt see any baffles in it.

 

[wmaxt]

Jabber,

Could I have your sources? I always like to back up what I have.

My sources give the L 414 @ 54in and 1,425hp, and the J 420 @ 54in and 1,425 both in METO throttle.

Jon,

Rember even if wasn't used much in the ETO, the use of differential throttle and rudder for max performance in a P-38.

The 480 dive limit is also altitude (density) dependant.

wmaxt

 

[JonJGoldberg]

...As stated by FLYBOYJ above my post, the other means was to 'shape' the tanks like the tear shaped drop danks, or stepped tanks install the tanks as close to 'CG' as possible. I don't know if baffels were install in the SBD

 

[JonJGoldberg]

wmaxt, I understand you point, and I'm excited to see all of you so inthused about this, but please, I think the table needs refining on bigger issues...

 

[JonJGoldberg]

...hey how did I get to be a SSgt?

 

[JonJGoldberg]

...What is this stuff anyway, un-confirmed Kills...confirmed Kills...

 

[lesofprimus]

I could explain it to u, and as an Admin I should, but I cant... No one really knows what it means...

Basically, u get a certain amount of uncon and conf kills for each post u make, up to a certain number of post in a given 24-48 hour period.... The longer the post, the more kills....

Kinda shows u who the REALLY big windbags are that dont post too often....

 

[wmaxt]

wmaxt, I understand you point, and I'm excited to see all of you so inthused about this, but please, I think the table needs refining on bigger issues...

I've done tables like your doing (Iwish I could get it but I can't open it) and I know how complicated it can get. The P-38, even the early models could turn with the majority of the single engine fighters but artificialy limiting its capabilities isn't good either.

I'm not trying to be nitpicky, I know you'll do the best you can.

wmaxt

 

[JonJGoldberg]

"I've done tables like your doing (Iwish I could get it but I can't open it)..."

I had to do this 3 times befor I understood how to poen the file I posted. Please download it and open with Adobe Acrobat Reader.

I look foward to your comments after it's opened... Use Rev.1.1 on page 21

 

[FLYBOYJ]

the only authentic WW2 fuel cell Ive seen was at Chino. It was back in the 80's and they had their SBD torn apart and had the pieces on display. The fuel tank needed repairs and was split open. I didnt see any baffles in it.

In that case "Head Pressure" (No Pun) might be designed into the tank. This occurs when a pressure (either positive or negative depending on the design) is placed on the tank, the say way you might get gas released when you take the fuel tank off your car. This too will minimize sloshing in the tanks....

The design and placement of baldder tanks will play a part in this as well. When you saw the bladders, did you look inside? Somtimes even the bladders have baffles within them, only visible when the bladder is cut in 2.