Best Fighter III

wmaxt said:

The power output of any piston engine is a curve. That curve is optimized to place max power at the point where it is most usefull. 2/3 throttle may represent 40% power while 85% throttle may be 90% power these examples are dependant on cam/ignition timing, boost, type of boost, fuel, and the designated use the combination is set up for. Throttle/Power is only linear in jet engines and then only after a certain power output is reached (maybe Flyboy can enlighten us on that score)

wmaxt

Click to expand...

Jet engines are "trimmed" on the ground to give a certain thrust at a given RPM (temperature and density altitude is also considered). If the maintainer trims the engine within the required parameters, the pilot should see a certain speed, EPR, and fuel flow at a specific altitude and the aircraft should see all this at a specificed true airspeed. All of this is designed into the aircraft (at least the ones I've worked with). There are some exceptions but this is the norm for jet aircraft.

Hey guys…finally felt like posting fer 'real' again!

Some personal catching up (briefly), then on to the 109 (which to some my post will be as long winded as usual; hehe.)

Started a website of my own; I have a bit more insight as to the work time it takes… Hats off to all WW2 aircraft.net staff… One day I may be as good…

To anyone interested, visit me…

The CFS2 Flight Deck
Join… Membership is free… Placed a thread here in the Gaming Section >>>
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/cfs-i-ii-iii/line-action-cfs-2-flight-deck-4316.html
Bring your CFS-2 game with you if you come to the Deck… We do TCP/IP gaming… Nothing formal…
Most any kite is ok…

The Me-109… Yeah; 'cept during its introduction, when it dominated its opponents, say through the battle of France, she represents an aviation enigma to me. For most of her career she seemed 'the number two' choice… I believe she was under utilized due to her unfortunate 2nd choice position.

(Theory) For example: If she were favored to the Bf-110, the Germans might have stumbled across two important 'tactics' long before the 8th air force; the relaying of escort fighters, the hunt of any enemy fighter using as bait the bombers possibly their 110 escorts as well.

Regardless of my own personal thoughts… fact is this 109 was a victim of underutilization, to being restrained to tactics ill suited to its strengths, in a manner, to me repetitive of Napoleon's mistake… When Napoleon saw the British's Line Abreast, his decision to charge up the middle was, in the safety of history's hindsight, an impetuous mistake, much like the Germans attaching 'slash' fighters to the confinement of the bombers. Maybe the discovery of the advantages of using the appearance of unescorted bombers as 'bait' was destined to be American… As the Bayonet Box formation completely castrated Napoleon's numerically overwhelming Calvary charge a Line Abreast formation was a tactical stroke of genius as it neatly exposed French field regiment's waste of man firepower. The Germans remained 'blind' of their abuses. Nope…for all intent for all to see they neatly allowed themselves to be 'radar-vectored' once again the Brits saw a column or consolidation; once again the British (masters at this I believe) developed a 'counter-formation' that gave England her 1st 'credited' victory. Shame if you are the Me-109, for if allowed the exploitation of her strengths, during her height, during the BOB; well she clearly would have been the single greatest fighter of WW2.

Stand alone as a weapon, the ME-109 was outstanding, and 'competitive' throughout the war; no easy nor small accomplishment, however as accomplished as she was, as a package, again, she was the finest 2nd choice fighter in the field, a 2nd choice that bested some adversaries 'front line fighters'... But Germany offers another platform clearly superior to the 109, when viewed by specification or 'empirical' performance; around since nearly the beginning of the war as well… The Fw-190. Actual historical contribution, to me defined as 'if missing/or allowed to mature the war would be different'. The Fw-190; historically, if she were not produced…wow! What a hole… Germany would have lost much much sooner. We could talk more of 190s the derivatives or offshoots; but IMHO Germany also was the only country to field jets (Yes, the Meteor was in service… big woop on the V-1 kills –not in any way meant to minimize their their pilots actual contribution, just meant to properly 'weight' them within this discussion-). This 'Contribution' transcends WW2, as does the A-bomb. The Me-262, engine problems all I believe wins the 'historical' category as clearly as the performance and firepower categories. As a weapon, the Me-109 was neither held back from maturing as a design, nor IMHO would it have been greatly missed if never produced; if missing would it have significantly changed the war's outcome? IMHO Germany's losing entries to the position awarded the 109, were not bad 'runners-up' would have matured into fine combatants. Me-109s were historically 'replaceable'. But, IMHO, historically, as the 262 was fielded in number, feared above any other 'fighter' of it's time by every Allied ETO bomber pilot... Targeted by every fighter jock in the European Theater… Relentlessly hunted by every victorious 'power', it was, without doubt the soul contribution of the Me-262 that most 'know of' weather expert, or novice; what we all 'bring to mind' 1st, when told of the introduction of the 'Jet Fighter'. Sure, you may argue that another aircraft, say the Meteor, or P-80, would have held that crown if not the 262. …But then the jet would therefore then not be a weapon of WW2 at all, it was under test, or in 'pre-deployment' duds, they represented technological possibilities undergoing final 'tweaking', all except the 262

Welcome back. Interesting take on the 109. I agree with you on a lot of it. Enjoyed reading it.

syscom3 said:

I maintain that if the -109's had more endurance, they could have had longer escort times for the bombers and wouldnt have to break off contact(s) so soon to return back to base. The RAF loss's would have increased.

Click to expand...

The Bf 109's range only became a factor when the Luftwaffe switched to attacking London, before then the 109's range wasn't a problem while attacking the RAF's 11 Group airfields , they had enough to both escort the bombers and engage in combat.

Jon has a point, we have been missing the Me-262 which infact - considering pure performance and hgh speed handling - is the best fighter of the war.

And about the Meteor, well thank god for its pilots that they didn't have to go up against the Me-262 - they would've been squashed.

The Vampire was a far better match.

The biggest problem I have with the Me-262 is its configuration. While it definitely made obsolete all the previous fighters, it was technilogical dead end similar to the CSS Virginia, would instantaneously made wooden ships obsolete, nevertheless did not advance past the Civil War. The P-80 configuration, which integrated the engine into the airframe, was clearly superior and can be seen in modern aircraft. The configuration of the Me-262, and the Meteor, did not advance very far after the war and died out with the YAK-25/28 (there may have been some French copies). What did make a major impact on future aircraft design was German advance aircraft design work including swept wing and possible the axial flow jet engine (I don't know much about engine development). Among the WWII fighters, the Me-262 was head and shoulders above their capability, and, if they were introduce enmasse before D-day, the war could certainly have been impacted against the allies. However, it would have soon been surpassed by both allied jet fighter development and by contemporary German jet fighter development (I think Germany would have maintained a lead in jet fighter technology until the allies applied the weight of its industry to jet fighter development). All in all, it was an impressive aircraft that surpassed contemporary designs, it just didn't have a lot of places to go as a fighter.

davparlr said:

The biggest problem I have with the Me-262 is its configuration. While it definitely made obsolete all the previous fighters, it was technilogical dead end similar to the CSS Virginia, would instantaneously made wooden ships obsolete, nevertheless did not advance past the Civil War. The P-80 configuration, which integrated the engine into the airframe, was clearly superior and can be seen in modern aircraft. The configuration of the Me-262, and the Meteor, did not advance very far after the war and died out with the YAK-25/28 (there may have been some French copies). What did make a major impact on future aircraft design was German advance aircraft design work including swept wing and possible the axial flow jet engine (I don't know much about engine development). Among the WWII fighters, the Me-262 was head and shoulders above their capability, and, if they were introduce enmasse before D-day, the war could certainly have been impacted against the allies. However, it would have soon been surpassed by both allied jet fighter development and by contemporary German jet fighter development (I think Germany would have maintained a lead in jet fighter technology until the allies applied the weight of its industry to jet fighter development). All in all, it was an impressive aircraft that surpassed contemporary designs, it just didn't have a lot of places to go as a fighter.

Click to expand...

I disagree somewhat, as the P-80 would've fallen prey to the Me-262 as-well had they ever met.

The Me-262 incoperated so much new technology into one that although having two outboard engines was a small, and I mean SMALL disadvantage, all the new extra features more than made up for that. Besides although the P-80 featured a fuselage mounted engine it lost allot of thrust because of the lenght of the air-intake, something the Germans already knew from experiments - hence the outboard engine placements on their serviceable jets. The P-80 was also at a serious disadvantage in wing design, having alot more drag to deal with, esp. at high speeds - and the fact that the Me-262 featured full span slats for slow speed fighting and the P-80 didn't, certainly didn't help matters for the USAAF either.

And worthy of note is also that the actual production version of the P-80 was far less nimble than YP-80 and XP-80 prototypes - which were probably already slightly less nimble than the Me-262.

And although I agree outboard mounted engines wasn't the future of the Jet fighter, it nonetheless had its benefits as it allowed the Me-262 to have tremendously strong wings able to cope with VERY high G-forces.

Soren said:

I disagree somewhat, as the P-80 would've fallen prey to the Me-262 as-well had they ever met.

Click to expand...

I don't agree with this and the data does not support your assertion. The P-80 had a definite speed advantage up to 25000 ft and probably to max altitude. It climbed faster and had a 7000' service ceiling advantage. These are impressive cards to hold in one's hands. I don't want to rehash another thread, but to think it would be a pushover is not supportable.

The Me-262 incoperated so much new technology into one that although having two outboard engines was a small, and I mean SMALL disadvantage, all the new extra features more than made up for that. Besides although the P-80 featured a fuselage mounted engine it lost allot of thrust because of the lenght of the air-intake, something the Germans already knew from experiments - hence the outboard engine placements on their serviceable jets. The P-80 was also at a serious disadvantage in wing design, having alot more drag to deal with, esp. at high speeds - and the fact that the Me-262 featured full span slats for slow speed fighting and the P-80 didn't, certainly didn't help matters for the USAAF either.

Click to expand...

It lost so much thrust and had so much drag that it was 44 mph faster at SL than the Me-262 with the same thrust! This indicates that the P-80 was a much cleaner airfrarme than the Me-262. I think parasitic drag of the two added nacelles under the wings more than made up for the thicker wings of the P-80.

And worthy of note is also that the actual production version of the P-80 was far less nimble than YP-80 and XP-80 prototypes - which were probably already slightly less nimble than the Me-262.

And although I agree outboard mounted engines wasn't the future of the Jet fighter, it nonetheless had its benefits as it allowed the Me-262 to have tremendously strong wings able to cope with VERY high G-forces.

Click to expand...

There are more efficient ways of strengthening wings.

In spite of the above, I never said the P-80 was superior to the Me-262. In capable hands i suspect that both aircraft would be formidiable opponents much as the Mig-15 and Sabre was. I just said that the basic layout of the P-80 was superior to the Me-262 and could be developed to a further degree, which has been proven by subsequent aircraft development.

I think that the best ighter is P51 its speed is 703Kph

Okay thinking that the P-51 is not a bad thing but what does 703kmh have to do with it. There were plenty of planes that were faster than 703km/h and speed is not everything when it comes to being a good fighter.

Sorry but you have a weak arguement.

Davparlr,

This is from a postwar USAAF report comparing the P-80A with the Me-262: "'Despite a difference in gross weight of nearly 2,000 lb (907 kg), the Me 262 was superior to the P-80A in acceleration, speed and approximately the same in climb performance. The Me 262 apparently has a higher critical Mach number, from a drag standpoint, than any current Army Air Force fighter.'"

Besides Raf ace if you want to base the best off of its speed there are plenty that are faster than 703kmh.

Arado Ar-240C-0: 730kmh
Dornier Do-335: 765kmh
Ta-152: 750kmh
Fw-190A (certian versions): 705kmh
Fw-190D-9: 710kmh
He-162: 905kmh
Bf-109K: 740kmh
Me-163: 960kmh
Me-262: 870kmh

P-38: 715kmh
P-80 (later versions not the flown in WW2): 965kmh

Mosquito: 730kmh
Meteor Mk.9: 958kmh
Tempest: 708kmh
Hawker Fury: 760kmh
Spitfire XIV: 721kmh

Basically the point it. Speed does not determine alone what the best fighter is.

Not a single Bf 109K reached 740 km/h, K-4 with production prop reached 715 km/h.
A K-4 with an experimental prop called Dünnblattpropeller" reached 725 km/h.

740 km/h are proably calculated figures for DB605L equipped Kurfürst.

You are probably right. I was taking these figures from memory not from actually statistics.

christ i'd never be able to remember all that myself, but yes you're right and we've covered the P-51 so many times...........

Thats why I stated the speed wrong for the Bf-109K. I am sure there are others that are wrong up there.

either way the point still stands that she was far from the fastest of the war, sounds like he's just lifted the figure straight from a documentary singing the P-51's praises.............

Am I the only one that kmh means really nothing to? Even mph are almost meaningless to me, I have to convert these numbers to knots in my head to have impact

Kmph is useless i mean they're just big numbers, Mph is where it's at.......

I like km/h the best, its more precise