Best Fighter III

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Me-262 certainly can not be the best aircraft. It had crappy engines. It was made of disimmiliar metals. Construction was poor.

Oh ghastly Wespe did you see what I wrote there!!!! It must be Allied Propoganda!!!!

And since you think you are funny and wanna talk about contributions. It had no contribution to winning a war so therefore its outa here...
 
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
How can you support an aircraft that had shitty engines and could perform in 3 different roles as the most versatile aircraft?
Click to expand...

5 Roles, 5 Roles, not 3

Fighter
Ground attack
Nightfighter
Trainer
Recon

Anyway I thought that we had already agreed on the A-26 as the best and most versitile a/c.
You See I do not have a problem to vote for an American plane, same goes for the B-29, SO WHAT MOOOOORE DO YOU YANKS WANT???

I wont give you the fighter "NEVER"
 

Attachments

  • Signat.forum.bmp
    132 KB · Views: 91
Wespe said:
5 Roles, 5 Roles, not 3

Fighter
Ground attack
Nightfighter
Trainer
Recon
Click to expand...

That is still is not a lot.

Wespe said:
Anyway I thought that we had already agreed on the A-26 as the best and most versitile a/c.
Click to expand...

No I never agreed with you. I dont ask you to agree with me either, you dont have to agree with me. I think the most versatile was the Ju-88.

All I said was that the A-26 was a great aircraft and beautiful.

Wespe said:
You See I do not have a problem to vote for an American plane, same goes for the B-29, SO WHAT MOOOOORE DO YOU YANKS WANT???
Click to expand...

We allready discussed the Yank thing in another thread. When another members requests you not to refre to them as something you kindly do that. This is the 2nd time now. Once more you get an official warning.

I am very proud of my American ancestory as well as I am very proud of my German ancestory. So again for the last time you will refer to me as my handle not as Yank...

Wespe said:
I wont give you the fighter "NEVER"
Click to expand...

Again your opinion, you are allowed to have it.
 
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
That is still is not a lot.



No I never agreed with you. I dont ask you to agree with me either, you dont have to agree with me. I think the most versatile was the Ju-88.

All I said was that the A-26 was a great aircraft and beautiful.



We allready discussed the Yank thing in another thread. When another members requests you not to refre to them as something you kindly do that. This is the 2nd time now. Once more you get an official warning.

I am very proud of my American ancestory as well as I am very proud of my German ancestory. So again for the last time you will refer to me as my handle not as Yank...



Again your opinion, you are allowed to have it.
Click to expand...

Refer to you as what?
Quote: you will refer to me as my handle
 

Attachments

  • Signat.forum.bmp
    132 KB · Views: 106
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
Trust me you would be surprised. Just the smallest fragments of anything can get stuck in flight controls, flight control rods, servos, and anything else you can think of and jam controls.

We call it FOD in the aviation world. Foreign Object Damage.
Click to expand...

Gotta love some of the acronyms. I can't believe that there's TFOA - things falling off aircraft. that one blows my mind. It's even in NATOPS! Does that army use that one?

While we're still stuck on the 262 - does anyone have a good site with detailed information on the turbojets, as far as design and contruction goes?
 
mkloby said:
Gotta love some of the acronyms. I can't believe that there's TFOA - things falling off aircraft. that one blows my mind. It's even in NATOPS! Does that army use that one?

While we're still stuck on the 262 - does anyone have a good site with detailed information on the turbojets, as far as design and contruction goes?
Click to expand...

You know I dont actually recall hearing that one. It would not surprise me if it was used as well though.
 
mkloby said:
Gotta love some of the acronyms. I can't believe that there's TFOA - things falling off aircraft. that one blows my mind. It's even in NATOPS! Does that army use that one?

While we're still stuck on the 262 - does anyone have a good site with detailed information on the turbojets, as far as design and contruction goes?
Click to expand...

Actually fill out a TFOA report when one of the DC-130s I was involved with dropped a chain from the wheel well during take off. The aircraft's Crew chief (Plane captain) left it there when he untied the aircraft and forgot about it.

The USAFA has a huge DOPP (Dropped Object Prevention Program). There, the worse we see is an ELT antenna coming off or a plastic window vent from the gliders dislodging.

Turbine engine construction? Try this....

GAS TURBINE ENGINE TYPES AND CONSTRUCTION
 
Oh yeah I know that now. My buddy was landing into Balad in Iraq and dropped all his ammo on the runway. They had to fill out a lot of paperwork. Closed the runway down for a while because of FOD and ofcourse pissed off an Airforce C-5 Pilot because he had to hold because he could not land on the runway now!
 
FLYBOYJ said:
Actually fill out a TFOA report when one of the DC-130s I was involved with dropped a chain from the wheel well during take off. The aircraft's Crew chief (Plane captain) left it there when he untied the aircraft and forgot about it.

The USAFA has a huge DOPP (Dropped Object Prevention Program). There, the worse we see is an ELT antenna coming off or a plastic window vent from the gliders dislodging.

Turbine engine construction? Try this....

GAS TURBINE ENGINE TYPES AND CONSTRUCTION
Click to expand...

ELT's falling off??? Geez.

Thanks for the link. I meant for specifics on the jumo turbojets :D

Gnomey - I'll try those out!
 
No aircraft can be considered the best with the reliability of the Me-262.

As for lethality of weapons, that can be solved by mathematics (not that I did it).

Pk = Ph x Pf where

Pk is the probability of kill.

Ph is the probability of hit.

Pf is the probability of fatal hit.

In English, the probability of a kill is the probability of a hit given the probability of a fatal hit. Let's make this simple. Say the probability of a single hit by a 30mm round is fatal 70% of the time. The hit by a .50 cal. is fatal 20% of the time. Now let's say that the probability of a hit by a single 30mm round is 1%, and the probability of a hit of a single .50 cal round is 2% (higher muzzle velocity). Then, for a single round, the probability of a kill for a 30mm would be .7 % (70% x 1%) or .007, for the .50 cal, it would be .4% (20% x 2%) or .004.

Now, this needs to be calculated over time. Let's assume a one half second burst. For the 30mm, that would be 5 rounds, for a .50 cal that would be 6 rounds. Total amount of rounds fired by a Me-262 would be 20 (4 x 5). For a P-51D, it would be 36 (6 x 6). For a P-47D, it would be 48 (8 x 6). This is based on a rate of fire for the 30mm at 650 rpm, and 750 rpm for the .50 cal. And counting four guns for the Me-262, six for the P-51D, and eight for the P-47D.

Sooo, using the arcane rules of probability, the probability of a kill by the Me-262 with a one half second burst is 1-(1- .007)20 or 13.1%. For the P-51D, the probability is 13.4%. For a P-47D, the probability is 17.5%. It is clear from this example that more smaller guns are better than fewer bigger guns. However, if I changed the variables of probability of fatal hit, this would change to the other way round.

Now, you cannot use any of this a proof in any way. It is all made up. I don't know the probability of a fatal hit by 30mm or a .50 cal. Even the probability calculation is suspect (I couldn't find my probability book, so I had to create the formula. I think it is right), But it does show you the complexity of what you are arguing and, also, if you had the correct numbers for probability of fatal hit and probability of hit (a function, I am sure, of maneuvering, muzzle velocity, and range), you could actually prove which configuration is best. And, most likely, this was done and the weapons were chosen for optimizing the specific configuration for the mission.

Any way, arguing without data is running around in circles. But then, we're good at that!:lol:
 
Parmigiano said:
Davparlr,
your points are logically sustainable but this work from Tony Williams comes to a completely different conclusion:

CANNON OR MACHINE GUN

WORLD WAR 2 FIGHTER GUN EFFECTIVENESS

IDEAL WW2 FIGHTER ARMAMENT

.. so the debate is open !
Click to expand...

You are confusing me with someone with logic. :) I didn't mean to make an argument. I only wanted to point out that this is an engineering problem. By understanding the variables such as circular error probability, aim point range, gunsight error, round lethality on desired target, etc. an engineer can calculated the gun configuration needed to have a 90% kill probability against a specific manuervering or non-maneuvering target with a given burst time.

It's kinda like selecting a type of ammo and gun you would use when you go hunting. Birdshot is best against small birds because it has a high probability of hitting and taking down a lightly armored bird, but you would want something heavier against a deer, but your probability of a hit is reduced.

I'll go to the website and see what he uses for logic. I am sure I won't have a problem.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

L
  • Locked
What Criteria should be used for determining the best land based piston fighter
9 10 11
Replies
218
Views
24K
Lighthunmust
L
N
Best Aircrafts
Replies
4
Views
2K
TheMustangRider
TheMustangRider
O
Poor Aircraft, Best Pilot
Replies
4
Views
2K
net_sailor
net_sailor
dreadnought
  • Locked
Best Piston Engined Fighter Ever
8 9 10
Replies
187
Views
27K
lesofprimus
lesofprimus
Matt308
  • Locked
The Person Below Me (TPBM) Pt. III
118 119 120
Replies
2K
Views
119K
Soren
Soren
Back