Best Fighter III (1 Viewer)

[davparlr]

The single bullet statement is only meant to illustrate how, with a liquid cooled engine, a single well placed bullet in the cooling system can disable a fighter. Obviously a single bullet in a single seat fighter's pilot's head can bring down any aircraft. A survey of both American and British pilots at the fighter meet in Pautuxent River, Md. in 1944 showed that 79% named the R2800 as the engine which inspired the most confidence. 17% named the Merlin.

I'm sure there are a lot of single point failures in a R2800 that is suseptable to a bullet; oil pumps, oil lines, oil coolers, fuel lines, fuel pumps, even a lucky shot into one of the jugs could possibly cause failure of the engine. It was a tough engine and less complex and less vunerable than the Merlin, just not totally bullet proof.

 

[Soren]

I don't have any arguments here except the comment about the Me 262 having superior performance in 46. Both American and British were developing more powerful engines and had aircraft by late 46 and early 47 that were capable of 600 mph. The P-80B began delivery in early 47 and had a more powerful engine than the P-80A. The British had established a world speed record of 615 mph in 46, and this in a significantly reduced military budget. If Allied military development on jet aircraft had continued after mid 45, it is unrealistic to believe that significant performance increased would have occured. Also, I think you are making an assumption that the continued engine development would have solve the problems of the German jet engines. I don't doubt that they had the capibility to do this but I don't think there advances would be any faster than the Allies. Now the swept wing Me 262? That's something else but I would doubt that it would have made 1946.

Well lets just agree to slightly disagree then

 

[davparlr]

Well lets just agree to slightly disagree then

Sounds fair to me!!

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I'm sure there are a lot of single point failures in a R2800 that is suseptable to a bullet; oil pumps, oil lines, oil coolers, fuel lines, fuel pumps, even a lucky shot into one of the jugs could possibly cause failure of the engine. It was a tough engine and less complex and less vunerable than the Merlin, just not totally bullet proof.

No Way Man! Are you lieing to us! You mean to tell me that bullets would just fly off the R2800 like it was Superman!

Sorry I could not resist.

 

[davparlr]

No Way Man! Are you lieing to us! You mean to tell me that bullets would just fly off the R2800 like it was Superman!

Sorry I could not resist.

I don't know, after all, it was an American engine. In fact I think I read somewhere where it was the engine that won the war!!

 

[Reluctant Poster]

No you are completely missing my point. My point is that once the P-51 was over Germany and was fighting a Bf-109 or Fw-190 that had just taken off, its range was negligent in the fight. Think about what I am saying.

I know exactly what you're saying. Under a specific set of circumstances it did well. As an escort fighter over Britain and over Malta, not so well.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

Re the F4F-3 v Hurricane discussion and we are having an academic discussion here. There was plenty of ammo in the US, I have to believe that the radial engines were at least as reliable as the Merlins. The firing time for the Wildcat guns was 28.7 sec which has to be more than the Hurris and the the throw weight was 6.36 pd/sec which was substantially more than the Hurris. Add in a 1100 mile yardstick range, a 3300 fpm climb rate at sea level, a more rugged airframe and an engine more resistant to battle damage and the Wildcat or Martlet I could have been a formidable weapon for the RAF during the BOB if it had been available. My only point as far as this discussion is concerned is that there is a certain amount of academic prejudice that the shipboard fighters that fought in the Pacific were second class performers and couldn't compete in Europe. My opinion is that that prejudice is somewhat unfounded. It is interesting to speculate as to what type of aircraft the Royal Navy would have operated if, during the period 1918-1939, they had been allowed to develop their preferred designs.

The first production F4F was accepted by the Royal Navy AFTER the start of the Battle of Britain. The USN got their first after the BoB was over. By the end of the BoB there was a grand total of 85 F4F's in existance. Taking into account the time required for pilot training on a brand new aircraft it's impossible for the F4F to have made any impact on the BoB. It wasn't ready in time.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I know exactly what you're saying. Under a specific set of circumstances it did well. As an escort fighter over Britain and over Malta, not so well.

Are you talking about the Bf-109 or the P-51 because my arguement is about the P-51. Were our posts going right past each other.

 

[Morai_Milo]

62 German fighters were lost in Air to Air Combat to Allied fighters. 70 Allied aircraft were shot down. You see with closer numerical numbers the Luftwaffe did not fair to bad against Allied Aircraft.

88 German fighters were lost to Allied ground fire and 84 were lost to German ground fire.

In the well researched Bodenplatte book by John Manrho and Ron Putz, Appendix 5,

LW aerial combat claims

Fernschreiben II.Jako.Ic Nr.140/44 geh. vom 3.1.45

55 destroyed, 11 probables

Luftwaffenfuhrungsstab 1c, Fremde Luftwaffen West, Nr.1160/45Sg.vom 25.2.45

65 claimed, 12 probable

A list by pilot has 52 claims.

Chap. 13

Allied aerial losses were 15 shot down and 10 damaged. Six more were lost to other various reasons. Allied aerial claims of LW a/c was 97. Allied AA made 129 claims.

German flak claimed 15 LW fighters and 2 Ju88 Lotsen, for sure. Adding 1/2 of the losses to unknown reasons only brings the number to 30-35 a/c shot down by 'friendly' flak.

LW losses:
271 Bf109/Fw190 destroyed (60-100%)
65 Bf109/Fw190 damaged

9 Ju88 destroyed
2 Ju88 damaged

Losses by reason:
47% Allied AA
23% Allied fighters
5% German flak
5% accidents
5% by either Allied AA or fighters
3% technical reasons
1% fuel starvation
11% unknown

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Interesting info there, but if you look at any source they are all different. I dont think it will ever be confirmed so I go with the most accepted stats and that is what I posted up there.

 

[Morai_Milo]

I suggest you get the book published in 2004, after years of extensive research. It is the most comprehensive study of Bodenplatte ever published. You can sluff it off and have a closed mind if you what, but that is your loss. Will you sluff off Erich's book when it comes out because it does not jive with what has been written before?

Just to show how extensive the research was for this book, the fate of 15 missing LW members, 8 being from Bodenplatte, were discovered.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

The single bullet statement is only meant to illustrate how, with a liquid cooled engine, a single well placed bullet in the cooling system can disable a fighter. Obviously a single bullet in a single seat fighter's pilot's head can bring down any aircraft. A survey of both American and British pilots at the fighter meet in Pautuxent River, Md. in 1944 showed that 79% named the R2800 as the engine which inspired the most confidence. 17% named the Merlin.

in that case i'm willing to bet that 19% of Pilots asked were British and 81% were American have you any more information on this claim? and don't just look at the black and white of "it's an inline and must be weak", obviously the Merlin's weaker than a R-2800 but that does not change the fact that she was one of the most reliable and widely used engines of the war..........

 

[renrich]

Look at the sorties versus losses in Europe of the P47 with a radial engine versus the P51, P38 and P40, all with liquid cooled engines and most with Merlins. It seems obvious to me that an inline liquid cooled engine is more vulnerable to battle damage than a radial air cooled engine. That is the reason the US Navy insisted on air cooled engines because flying over water demanded a more reliable and rugged engine than flying over land.

 

[renrich]

You are mostly correct about the F4F-3. The British took delivery of the first Martlet on July 27, 1940. By Oct. 40 the FAA had 81 Martlets. They could not have had any impact on the BOB. However the US Navy was using the first production F4F by April, 1940.

 

[Gnomey]

Look at the sorties versus losses in Europe of the P47 with a radial engine versus the P51, P38 and P40, all with liquid cooled engines and most with Merlins. It seems obvious to me that an inline liquid cooled engine is more vulnerable to battle damage than a radial air cooled engine. That is the reason the US Navy insisted on air cooled engines because flying over water demanded a more reliable and rugged engine than flying over land.

Agreed radials are more resistant to damage than inlines but that point has never really been a matter of discussion here...

And the majority of those aircraft you named were powered by Allisons not Merlins...

 

[Morai_Milo]

Agreed radials are more resistant to damage than inlines but that point has never really been a matter of discussion here...

And the majority of those aircraft you named were powered by Allisons not Merlins...

Only the P-38 was totally powered by Allisons. Only a handful of the P-51 family used Allisons and the P40 family was split between Allison and Merlin.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

It is the most comprehensive study of Bodenplatte ever published.

Very might well be. As a aviation enthusiast I wll check it out. I dont happen to be as closed minded as you accuse me of!

So quit with your attitude, especially when you have all of 4 posts in this forum.

You can sluff it off and have a closed mind if you what, but that is your loss.

I am not in a good mood tonight, dont accuse me of things when you do not know me. You got that NOOB!!!!

I dont know what they teach you where you come from, but where I am from you get to know people before you judge them. Dont ever judge a book by its cover. You got that! My recommendation to you is this: Look around the forum and learn about this site before talking ****!

Will you sluff off Erich's book when it comes out because it does not jive with what has been written before?

First of all me and Erich exchange info on a daily basis. If he has info then I read and learn from it. Dont talk **** NOOB!

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Look at the sorties versus losses in Europe of the P47 with a radial engine versus the P51, P38 and P40, all with liquid cooled engines and most with Merlins. It seems obvious to me that an inline liquid cooled engine is more vulnerable to battle damage than a radial air cooled engine. That is the reason the US Navy insisted on air cooled engines because flying over water demanded a more reliable and rugged engine than flying over land.

No one has ever argued that a radial succumed to battle damage more than an inline. Everyone knows that radials are more rugged and reliable, however what people seem to think is that radials were bullet proof! You put rounds into a radial engine it is going to break or atleast not work efficiently.

It does not matter if you have an inline or a radial. Damage to the engine is bad and all engines are succeptable to damage.

 

[Chingachgook]

Very might well be. As a aviation enthusiast I wll check it out. I dont happen to be as closed minded as you accuse me of!

So quit with your attitude, especially when you have all of 4 posts in this forum.



I am not in a good mood tonight, dont accuse me of things when you do not know me. You got that NOOB!!!!

I dont know what they teach you where you come from, but where I am from you get to know people before you judge them. Dont ever judge a book by its cover. You got that! My recommendation to you is this: Look around the forum and learn about this site before talking ****!



First of all me and Erich exchange info on a daily basis. If he has info then I read and learn from it. Dont talk **** NOOB!

Alder, chill m8.

Milo is getting a lashing for this? Are his words so bad?

Did you smack Kurfürst down for being such a swell guy toward me (and to Steve Hinton)?

[My apologies in advance if something else is wrong, you said you were not in a good mood, I hope it is nothing serious]

 

[Soren]

Christ Chinny !