Best Fighter III (1 Viewer)

[str8jax]

What I am getting at is, I dont think the Lanc could have done it with only 1 engine. The 17 was known to have flown on occasion with half of its loaded weight on only 1 engine. Naturally it would drop its weight to get back home but the 17 could do it.

What was the B17 full load weight Vs the Lancaster? Full fuel,bombload, crew etc?

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I will have to look it up tomorrow but the Lancaster had a higher max take off weight and a larger bomb load than the B-17.

 

[str8jax]

I will have to look it up tomorrow but the Lancaster had a higher max take off weight and a larger bomb load than the B-17.

The reason I was asking is if a lancaster with 14000 lbs of bombs actually weighs more than a b-17 with 6000 lbs of bombs? GVW The 2 engine argument you know..

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

this's what i've got on it

B-17G
Empty weight- 36,135lbs
MTOW- 65,500lbs

Lancaster Mk.I (in know these off by heart now )
Empty- 36,900lbs
MTOW 70,000lbs

but it looks like you're asking with regards to flight with engines out? for a start if a pilot lost any more than one engine he would jettison his payload (there are many stories of pilots having carried on to the target on 3 engines) but what you also need to look at is power, which is very telling RE engine out performance-

B-17G
4x R-1820 at 1,200hp each- total 4,800hp
power/MOTW ratio- 0.073hp/lb (these figures don't mean a great deal they're just for comparison)

Lancaster Mk.I
4x RR Merlin 24s at 1,640hp each- total 6,560hp
power/MTOW ratio- 0.094hp/lb
power on 3 engines- 4,920hp

so as you can see the lanc has considderably more power than the B-17, a lanc on 3 engines has more power than a B-17 on four for roughly similar weights- hence the greater engine out performance............

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Good info there.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

i think it's quite telling so as a service to the site, out of the goodness of my heart i feel like doing it for more bombers!

B-24H/J
4x R-1830 at 1,200hp each- total 4,800hp
Empty weight- 36,500lbs
Maximum overload TOW- 71,200lbs (i can't find the standard MTOW)
power/overload TOW ratio- 0.067hp/lb

B-29 (these aren't from the world's most reliable source however)
4x R-3350 at 2,200hp each (when you could get them working ) total- 8,800hp
Empty weight- 74,500lbs
MTOW- 135,000lbs
power/MTOW ratio- 0.065hp/lb

HP Halifax Mk.III
4x Hercules XVI at 1,615hp each- total 6,460hp
Empty weight- 38,240lbs
MTOW- 65,000lbs
power/MTOW ratio- 0.099

Stirling Mk.III
4x Hercules XVI at 1,650hp each (different production run to the HP's) total- 6,600hp
empty weight- 43,200lbs
MTOW- 70,000lbs
power/MTOW ratio- 0.094

so for the 6 major heavies of the war it's the general trend that the British bombers have more power at hand for roughly similar weights, suggestive of better engine out performance but obviously you'd still have to look into power loadings etc to get a better idea..........

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

B-29 (these aren't from the world's most reliable source however)
4x R-3350 at 2,200hp each (when you could get them working ) total- 8,800hp
Empty weight- 74,500lbs
MTOW- 135,000lbs
power/MTOW ratio- 0.065hp/lb

As for the (when you can get them working) part, it was not as bad as you make them sound....

B-29 hands down was better than anything produced in WW2 and saw major service....

 

[renrich]

New to this forum but with regard to the discussion about best ww2 piston engined fighter, consider this. In Europe the P47 flew 423,435 combat sorties for 3077 losses. The P51 flew 213,873 combat sorties for 2520 losses. The two leading American aces flew P47s.

 

[renrich]

Again regarding the best ww2 piston engine fighter. It is not very productive to compare spitfires, 109s, 190s, 51s or 47s unless you talk about specific models. The mark 14 spitfire was a different animal than the mark 5. How would the battle of Britain turned out if the Germans had been equipped with the A6M instead of the 109?

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Well if you read through all the posts and through all the different threads you will see that we compare them by different marks and not just generic Bf-109 vs. Spitfire. Please read them all...

As for the Bf-109 vs. the Zero in the battle of Britain I dont think it would have changed a thing. Granted the Zero had better range but the 109 has it hands down in ruggedness and I would say more manueverable at lower speeds.

 

[renrich]

The A6M had more than twice the range of the 109 and there was no modern fighter in ww2 that had the slow speed maneuver capabilities of the Zero. Having more than an hour to spend in the air over Britain instead of 15 or 20 minutes would have had a huge impact on the battle. The British Battle of Britain veterans in spitfires flying out of Darwin in 1942 tried to dogfight the A6M and paid heavily for that mistake. It is my understanding that neither the British or German fighters in 1940 had self sealing tanks so the 109 would have had no advantage in ruggedness and in fact with the air cooled engine the Zero would have had an advantage.

 

[renrich]

wmaxt, I am a new member and just read your post of December, 2004. Hope you are still on board. I had seen the numbers on sorties versus losses of US fighters in Europe, wrote them down and now don't know where I found them. I f you read this please enlighten me as to where I can access them. Thanks

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

no modern fighter in ww2 that had the slow speed maneuver capabilities of the Zero.

Excuse me, you are correct, I got that backwards.

Having more than an hour to spend in the air over Britain instead of 15 or 20 minutes would have had a huge impact on the battle. The British Battle of Britain veterans in spitfires flying out of Darwin in 1942 tried to dogfight the A6M and paid heavily for that mistake. It is my understanding that neither the British or German fighters in 1940 had self sealing tanks so the 109 would have had no advantage in ruggedness and in fact with the air cooled engine the Zero would have had an advantage.

While you are correct that the range would have been a huge advantage, however the 109 had better armament and better protection for the crew and had fuel injection, giving it an advantage over the Spit.

I really dont think the Zero would have been an advantage over the 109. Besides the Fw-190 was allready on its way (not in time for the BoB ofcourse) and it was handsdown superior to the Zero.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The A6M had more than twice the range of the 109 and there was no modern fighter in ww2 that had the slow speed maneuver capabilities of the Zero. Having more than an hour to spend in the air over Britain instead of 15 or 20 minutes would have had a huge impact on the battle. The British Battle of Britain veterans in spitfires flying out of Darwin in 1942 tried to dogfight the A6M and paid heavily for that mistake. It is my understanding that neither the British or German fighters in 1940 had self sealing tanks so the 109 would have had no advantage in ruggedness and in fact with the air cooled engine the Zero would have had an advantage.

Those BoB vets you speak of tried to fight the Zero on it's terms - dogfighting under 300 mph. Above 300 mph the Zero lost most if not all its mystical maneuvering ability - it's controls got stiff and did not have the speed to out dive most allied aircraft.

 

[renrich]

To add to the discussion on ww2 fighters the best source of performance figures on US fighters I have found is AMERICAS HUNDRED THOUSAND by Francis Dean. His figures for the highest speed for a P38J/L is 420mph @ 26,000feet with combat power. For a good dissertation by a combat experienced pilot on ww2 fighters, read pages 66-69 in EIGHTY KNOTS TO MACH 2 by Richard Linnekin.

 

[renrich]

Thank youall for your replies. In 1940 the A6M had two 7.7 MGs in the nose and two 20mm in the wings which I believe was equal to the 109. Of course it had no armor and control forces above 300 mph were too high. However my point is that in 1940 the Zero was probably the equal of any fighter in the world and with it's long range, at least twice any other operational fighter of that time, it was formidable. Actually, in 1940, the F4F-3 was a better performer than the Hurricane and in some ways was better even than the 109 or the spitfire.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Thank youall for your replies. In 1940 the A6M had two 7.7 MGs in the nose and two 20mm in the wings which I believe was equal to the 109. Of course it had no armor and control forces above 300 mph were too high. However my point is that in 1940 the Zero was probably the equal of any fighter in the world and with it's long range, at least twice any other operational fighter of that time, it was formidable. Actually, in 1940, the F4F-3 was a better performer than the Hurricane and in some ways was better even than the 109 or the spitfire.

Correct - but in 1940 there was little known about the Zero or any other Japanese aircraft. The only country who had any experience fighting the Japanese with modern equipment was the Soviet Union.

 

[renrich]

The Fw190 was a fine ww2 fighter and it seems that many members here pick the Fw 190D-9 as the best of the war. From a performance point of view I show the D-9 as making 426 mph at 21,650 ft with a time to climb to 19,685 ft of 7 min 6 sec with combat power and a range on internal fuel of 520 miles. The F4U-4 could make 446 mph at 26,200 ft, it's service ceiling was 41, 500 ft, it's rate of climb was 3870 fpm, and it had a range on internal fuel of 1005 miles. It had a better roll rate than the Mustang, was practically unbreakable, had an air cooled engine, (couldn't be brought down by a single round like the liquid cooled engined fighters) and in a pinch could carry a 4000 pound bomb load. It had excellent short field takeoff and landing characteristics. Sounds like a winner to me.

 

[renrich]

In 1940 Chennault knew about the A6M and fighting them with the Chinese and assorted other nationalities.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

In 1940 Chennault knew about the A6M and fighting them with the Chinese and assorted other nationalities.

The A6M2 was the first Zero model to see combat and that was in August of 1940. Few knew little of this aircraft. Chennault probably had knowledge of this aircraft as well as the Oscar (which was more maneuverable than the Zero) but no one with the exception of the Russians fought her in combat with modern equipment. Untill the start of WW2.