the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
it has no meaning for me though..........
Best Fighter III
- Thread starter kiwimac
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
- Status
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
it makes science easier but that's the only advantage 
mkloby
Senior Master Sergeant
it makes science easier but that's the only advantage
With the numbers you reach in aviation, I think that knots fit very well. Km/h turn into very big numbers. God knows how hard it is to do basic calculations in your head w/ small numbers will a maniacal Navy LT in the back seat screaming at you. Kmh as A/S would make that even worse... plus small numbers are a Marine's friend. but Soren's right - it's just what you're comfortable with I guess.
pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
I'm bilingual in metric or imperial and american measurements but the one I tend to use is the one I was raised on which is imperial and we've been metric for 30+years
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
For the longest time I was the same way. We only use knots when flying. I had to get used to it.
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
because of the EU now controlling everything we do we have been Metric officially for a number of years, yet all our signposts are in miles and milk's still sold by the pint! no one wants to give up imperial but the law is seeing to it that we have to, they're not allowed to teach anything about the imperial system at any level in schools and the current legislation means any food or drink must be sold in metric units (litres, kg etc) and can also have an imperial unit price too, but in a few years that's being changed so it can only be sold in metric, but even then we'll try and get around it, milk will simply have to be sold in 586ml bottles not pints 
Honestly in the end I would rather be metric than imperial (in Aviation I would rather be in knots and so for though) because metric is much easier. Instead of 1/16, 1/8, 1/4, 1/2/, 1 you have 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.... and so forth. I find it much easier.
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
i find imperial far easier to estimate things in, notonly because i grew up with miles but estimating in feet and inches is easier than metres and centimeters, someone telling me their height in metres means nothing, i can't picture anything in metres, same goes for mass, 200lbs i know is large (i'm almost there myself) but what the hell's 100kg?
220lbs I know what you mean though, I still estimate distance in miles and height/length I do either it depends. If you can convert them between each other it isn't too bad.
I know what you mean though, I still estimate distance in miles and height/length I do either it depends. If you can convert them between each other it isn't too bad.
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
i know the more common conversion factors from metric into imperial in my head but that's not much use unless you have only 1 of each metric unit 'cos i can't multiply like that in my head it's useful for knowing that for example if you have a distance of 10k then the miles figure will be lower.......
it's useful for knowing that for example if you have a distance of 10k then the miles figure will be lower.......
YakFlyer
Airman 1st Class
Your forgetting the other Legend, Gunther Rall. How I would like to meet this man. Other legends of note, from a personal view, are Al Deere, Keith Park and Johnny Johnson.
Some interesting posts, have read about 1/100000th of them but anyway. I don't see how people could replace the P-51 with the P-47. It wasn't half as manoevreable for starters.
For those who aren't sure on Russian aircraft, personally, I'd have said the Yak 3/9 was the finest 'dogfighter' that actually saw combat. It can be summed up by the Germans, forget anyone else's opinions. They were the ones that issued direct instructions to Fw190 and Me109 pilots to not engage them wherever possible, in particular, below 20,000ft.
They were lighter, smaller, and faster, with heavy fire power. Can one sum up the fighter stakes better? I am sure there were better designs, perhaps the Mk 24 Spitfire may have pushed the boundaries still further had it seen combat, or the Lavochkin La 9 surely could have been in a league all of it's own had it been ready in time? The Sea Fury? The Corsair, saw very little service in Europe, but how would it have matched up to a Fw190 at the same altitude and speed?
The Mustang had the speed, fire power, and range, but it wasn't as agile as the Spitfire, Fw190 or Yak 3.
By all means correct me if I am indeed wrong at any point.
Regards,
Andrew
While the P-51 was more maneuverable than the P-47. The P-51 was not th greatest thing since bread and butter. Was it a great plane? Absolutely yes, one of the best ever built. But what really was the only thing that it had in advantage over other aircraft. Its range. There were other American, British, and German aircraft were faster and more manueverable.
Once the P-51 got over the target, you can take its range out of the equation because now it is just fighter vs. fighter over Germany and the P-51 no longer has to get to the target, it is there.
Why did the P-51 do so well in my honest opinion, because of its large number. It had numerical superiority. 5 Bf-109G's or Fw-190A's getting jumped by 25 to 30 P-51s is a pretty one sided fight.
The P-51s lay to fame was that it had the range to take the fight to the enemy. Take that away and it was no differnent than any other fighter over the skies of Europe.
The reason that I like the P-47 over the P-51 is because of its ruggedness. It was also better adapted to the close air support role than the P-51.
Once the P-51 got over the target, you can take its range out of the equation because now it is just fighter vs. fighter over Germany and the P-51 no longer has to get to the target, it is there.
Why did the P-51 do so well in my honest opinion, because of its large number. It had numerical superiority. 5 Bf-109G's or Fw-190A's getting jumped by 25 to 30 P-51s is a pretty one sided fight.
The P-51s lay to fame was that it had the range to take the fight to the enemy. Take that away and it was no differnent than any other fighter over the skies of Europe.
The reason that I like the P-47 over the P-51 is because of its ruggedness. It was also better adapted to the close air support role than the P-51.
mkloby
Senior Master Sergeant
They were EXCELLENT compliments to each other... some focus on individual stats which make an A/C sexy, forgetting that aircraft are not built to be sexy, they're built for specific purpose, to fill roles, and ultimately to win wars.
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
The Me 262 apparently has a higher critical Mach number, from a drag standpoint, than any current Army Air Force fighter.'"[/QUOTE]
Is this a quote from the mystical flight test report that no one seems to have? I'm not really going to accept this information withou being able to review it. No other reports support this conclusion. I have no flight test data on the P-80 or Me 262, so all we have is what has been reported.
What exactly is "higher critical Mach number, from a drag stand point"? This makes no sense to me, maybe you can explain it. I know that critical Mach number is where airflow somewhere exceeds Mach 1 and things go fishy. This is a factor of the disruption of the airflow about the aircraft. I don't know where drag has anything to do with that. I can see that the Me 262 could have a higher critical Mach number and still be slower in level flight or be slower with equal thrust than another aircraft, like the P-80. A large aircraft can have a higher critical Mach number, and a higher coefficient of drag, than a small aircraft, but still be slower than a the smaller aircraft with the same engine in level flight, as long as neither approach critical Mach. Now, in a dive this could change. I don't have a issue with the Me 262 with critical Mach. With its slightly swept back wings, and thinner wings, as you have said, this is not unreasonable. I don't think that makes a significant statement about performance except, maybe, dive performance.
I would not doubt that if that report does exist, it was used to encourage the spending money to develop more advanced aircraft, like the F-86. It just doesn't add up to all the other data we have on the P-80 and Me 262.
Davparlr,
A higher critical mach number from a drag standpoint means the Me-262 is a cleaner aircraft - the swept wings give it a higher critical mach number as-well as lowers the drag. When you sweep the wings you effectively decrease the thickness ratio of the wing to the incoming air, which means less drag and a higher critical mach number.
And I believe the report is authentic, infact I'm quite sure of it as the early P-80A's weren't that fast, struggling to reach 792 km/h in level flight. And the later P-80's which reached 558 mph at SL, only reached 492 mph at 20,000 ft compared to the Me-262's 544 mph at the same altitude.
And the higher we go the larger the Me-262's advantage will be, as the axial flow Jumo engines were build to perform better as altitude and speed increased - they weren't configured for optimum performance at low alt like the P-80's centrifugal flow engine.
A higher critical mach number from a drag standpoint means the Me-262 is a cleaner aircraft - the swept wings give it a higher critical mach number as-well as lowers the drag. When you sweep the wings you effectively decrease the thickness ratio of the wing to the incoming air, which means less drag and a higher critical mach number.
And I believe the report is authentic, infact I'm quite sure of it as the early P-80A's weren't that fast, struggling to reach 792 km/h in level flight. And the later P-80's which reached 558 mph at SL, only reached 492 mph at 20,000 ft compared to the Me-262's 544 mph at the same altitude.
And the higher we go the larger the Me-262's advantage will be, as the axial flow Jumo engines were build to perform better as altitude and speed increased - they weren't configured for optimum performance at low alt like the P-80's centrifugal flow engine.
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
Critical Mach number comes into play only at transonic speeds, which neither aircraft got near in level flight. In a dive, yes. The max airspeed at highest q, SL, shows the P-80A at 558 mph (according to everybody, including your comment), the Me 262 was only capable of 511 to 514 mph (according to NASA.gov and Russian flight test results), some 44 mph slower. This with engines that generated an equivalent static thrust. If these numbers are correct, the Me 262 cannot have a less total drag, therefore cannot be cleaner, than the P-80 in non-transonic flight.
Well, I found where the quote came from, at least, a book. I couldn't find an airspeed for the P-80 at 20,000 ft. so I can't argue.
I did find that at 30,000 ft, the P-80A did 508 mph (all references) and the Me 262 did 506 at 33,000 ft. (Russian flight test), which tends to confirm your statement, except that that the performance improvement just made the Me 262 basically equivalent to the P-80 in speed. However, all sources say the P-80 had a 7500' ft service ceiling over the Me 262 so at 33000, they were roughly equal in speed but the P-80 certainly had a significant climb advantage, and probably in turn performance. This also makes suspect the statement that the P-80 only did 492 mph at 20000 ft., which is, oddly the same speed it will do at 40000 ft. Chuck Yeager, for what it was worth, who flew both, said they were roughly equal.
I was fustrated in trying to find good data on both these planes, especially the P-80, which, you would suspect, would have a lot.
I don't think you have a lot of justification that the Me 262 was clearly superior.
I agree completely here, however in a fight diving is most definitely going to occure, and the Me-262 was cleared for 1,000 km/h, beyond that and you could lose control, but there are accounts where the Me-262 apparently broke the sound barrier in a dive.
Lets not forget that the Me-262 had serious issues with its engines, something which might explain the lower ceiling and speed results - the pilots flying the thing weren't exactly happy to apply full throttle, the engines were just too ahead of their time. I don't think the true maximum speed of the a/c was ever recorded as the engines simply couldn't run full throttle for the needed amount of time.
And now just because the Me-262 has a lower ceiling doesn't mean its a worse turn fighter, cause slats don't help increase max ceiling, they just help maneuvering the aircraft close to stall and improve turn performance. Looking at the specs its quite clear that the Me-262 has an advantage in turn performance, and if at full throttle also in acceleration.
It would be clearly superior if they ever met, cause like I said, the early P-80A's had a hard time even reaching 792 km/h, and this problem was first resolved a good time after WWII. If the later P-80A and Me-262 should have ever met it would've been in 1946, and if the war had went on for that long by that time the Me-262 would've been equipped with more powerful engines.
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
No problem with the dive performance and its importance in a dog fight. As for going supersonic, not likely, even the Mig 15 would not break the sound barrier going straight down. Without proper instrumentation, pilots often claim incorrect conclusions.
I think this is true, however, at say, 33000, manuevering at 4500' below your ceiling has got to be more touchy that being 17000' below. And in this instance, the P-80 would certainly have advantage in vertical plane. Also, with a higher ceiling, the P-80 could look down and enjoy engaging when it wanted with high energy level, a significant advantage. In acceleration, you are probably right at high altitude, but not at low altitude.
Didn't the Me 262 also have engine problems,
? More powerful engines would have been available on both sides as time progressed. I don't think the Me 262 would have ever been a significant advantage over allied fighters. They were all roughly on a parity. However, the next generation German jet fighters would have sent the Allied engineers back to the drawing board in panic!
I almost fully agree with you, however, even at low alt the later P-80A would probably be at a disadvantage in acceleration compared to the Me-262, but this is assuming both a/c are running at full throttle - something which was very risky for the Me-262 pilot as the axial flow Jumo engines could reach incredibly high temperatures if run too long at this setting, temperatures higher than the metals at the time could handle. - Like I said I don't think the true maximum speed of the Me-262 was ever recorded as the engines simply couldn't run full throttle for the needed amount of time.
As to the 1946 scenario, well by that time the Me-262 would've had different and more powerful engines while the P-80A had nearly just gotten its fixed.
And about the accounts suggesting the Me-262 broke the soundbarrier, well I agree speed indicators at the time were not accurate those speeds, besides the Me-262 was going to need alot more power to do this, and even then its not certain the airframe could take it - no doubt it came close though, but atleast another 100 - 150 km/h was needed.
As to the 1946 scenario, well by that time the Me-262 would've had different and more powerful engines while the P-80A had nearly just gotten its fixed.
And about the accounts suggesting the Me-262 broke the soundbarrier, well I agree speed indicators at the time were not accurate those speeds, besides the Me-262 was going to need alot more power to do this, and even then its not certain the airframe could take it - no doubt it came close though, but atleast another 100 - 150 km/h was needed.
- Status
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
- Locked
