Best Fighter III

Oh if you really must know...I have just the right amount of hours in Civil Aircraft
to be dangerous. 225.5 hours in a Cessna.

Click to expand...

Interesting. What's the examiners designation on your Medical if you don't mind me asking as I must know?

Posting all the Civil aircraft data and such means nothing for the gents in combat.
We all know the largest percentage of accidents are caused by pilot error.

Click to expand...

So Physics is different for military aircraft huh? Your saying they can afford a margin of safety much higher than 1.5 average and still fly?

In WWII they had a bubble of immunity to these physical limits, right?

All the best,

Crumpp

LMFAO Crumpp....

Thanks for the offer Max. I have charts on the Merlin 61, but I'd just like to find ratings for the Merlin 66 since it's got different supercharger settings and whatnot.

Crumpp,
If it's not too much trouble I'm just looking mainly for the max. hp outputs of the 66 at particular altitudes compared to the Merlin 63's outputs.
I looked around in the Spitfire manual but I can't find it.

You mean like this?

All the best,

Crumpp

mad max,

I see your point; there were occasions of pilots acting outside the instructions, but unfortunately [as Crumpp stated] many of them died as a consequence. The pilots that acted in desperation and survived were either exceptionally good pilots or lucky; probably the latter. It makes no difference what type of aircraft you're flying, they've all got the same forces acting upon them.

I have a mere 30 minutes flight time in a Cessna 152 so I'm hardly qualified on making comment on actually flying an aircraft (although to say it's fun!). But I am in the second year of studying aerospace engineering, and I can only hope the safety drilled into us is the same as that drilled into a pilot during flight training. I don't want to have to force myself to do everything by the book and correctly, for some dip-sh*t pilot to f*ck it all up. The amount of times I've heard "...refer to the aircraft maintenance manual and follow it!" is enough to have me saying it in my sleep. What I'm trying to say is; if I have to follow the rules, then the posing p*ss-ant pilot should do too. (no offence Joe 'n Matt )

Yea, Crumpp, I need one similar to that one. Where do you find all these resources? I don't want to be bothering you all the time heheh.

OT: Plan_D,

how's aerospace engineering treating you? I'm planning on taking it after I finish high school, but I'm not sure if I can. They say I'm smart, but I think - like the veterans who survived forgetting about the manual - I'm just lucky.

Where do you find all these resources?

Click to expand...

For the original WWII documents, Archives of Museum's mostly, Sgt Pappy.

Be prepared to spend some money too. The fees range from ~1-300USD depending on the archive and the document. Some archives will look up and copy reports for additional fees. Most prefer you set an appointment and visit in person to do research.

We have amassed a collection over about a decade at cost of~100,000USD not including travel expenses and time.

Sometimes it is better to be lucky than smart!

All the best,

Crumpp

"how's aerospace engineering treating you? I'm planning on taking it after I finish high school, but I'm not sure if I can. They say I'm smart, but I think - like the veterans who survived forgetting about the manual - I'm just lucky."

It's all going very well, thank you. If you want to study aerospace engineering, you should. More than anything it's enjoyment of the subject and dedication, obviously a little bit intelligence can be thrown into the mix for good measure.

Sgt. Pappy said:

Yea, Crumpp, I need one similar to that one. Where do you find all these resources? I don't want to be bothering you all the time heheh.

OT: Plan_D,

how's aerospace engineering treating you? I'm planning on taking it after I finish high school, but I'm not sure if I can. They say I'm smart, but I think - like the veterans who survived forgetting about the manual - I'm just lucky.

Click to expand...

Lot of math and applied physics in the realm of Fluid Mechanics, and Heat and Mass transfer - before you start the specialized aero disciplines. I'm 30 years behind the current classroom infrastructure but if you strive for theretical aerodynamicsI would be suprised if your math syllabus stops short of Calculus of Variations and maybe Chaos Theory?

Haha. Chaos theory... I like the sound of that. I'm already taking physics and I'm doing ok so far.. Perhaps you gents could help me with my homework heheh.

Oh, then I'm lucky, Crumpp. I volunteer at a museum in which I have almost free access to the library. I've been raiding it every now and then since I was 14; youve gotta see the look on the curator's face.

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:

Yes it is I am going to try and find some info on RAF encounters with the Dora, if there are any.

Click to expand...

Does seem like a good topic to read, doesn't it. I think I'll find some stuff to.

I am applying for doing Aerospace Engineering next year. Can't wait!

It is impossible to say which ww2 fighter is the best, as some types never met. Also, NO fighter was excellent at low AND high altitude. Somebody would have to choose the BEST candidate based on the mission and then choose a BEST fighter from each country.

The Germans did have outstanding aircraft all through the war, but to say that they were the best would be wrong. They did get a jet fighter in the air first, but that did not affect the outcome at all. The Me 262 could not be touched at altitude, but when they were taking off and landing they were a sitting duck. The throttles in those things could only be VERY gradually moved back and forth, or a burnout/flameout would happen and he would then have NO power. A non-jet fighter aircraft could just go on the throttle and turn away from an attacker if they were pounced on during takeoff and landings.

The best American fighter at 20,000 feet and lower was easily the Corsair.
It's combination of speed, agility, firepower, range, warload, survivability and adaptability were at a level that no other U.S. plane could touch. The Germans never saw this plane with the exception of a few that flew for the FAA. The Jap aces after the war ALL said that it was the Corsair that they feared the most. Had the early teething problems with the F4U been fixed sooner, there would of have been no need for the F6F. In a fictional dogfight between the F6F and the F4U, all the F6F pilot could do would be to turn defensive circles (Lufberry's) The Hellcat was outmatched in every other category by the Corsair with the possible exception of range but as the Hellcat could only carry 3 theoretical drop tanks versus the 5 theoretical of the Corsair that could then be erased. The Mustang was actually put up against the F4U in carrier trials and mock combat (1943). Three Mustangs had their landing gear strengthened, various other structural upgrades, and givin' a tailhook. It was discovered that at low altitude(10,000 feet and lower) the Corsair was decidedly superior. At medium heights(10,000 - 20,000 feet) the F4U advantage started to fall off some, but the Corsair was still the fighter that you wanted to be in. At high altitude(20,000 feet and higher) the tables turned and the Mustang was the better plane.

Brits

Throughout the entire war the Spit was the best fighter the English had and it was fantastic. Ask any German ace what he thought about the Spit with a skilled pilot at the controls. The Spit was a fine plane and a match for anything up high.

Krauts

Early on the Me-109 was the best thing for the Germans. Against the current model Spitfires, the Me-109 had some advantages, but this could be offset by comparative pilot skill and the location of the fight. The E, F, and G model 109's were superb, lightweight fighter aircraft. The greatest fighter aces of all time ALL flew this plane. Erich Hartman shot down 352 enemy planes with one of these things. That speaks pretty loud.

Later on AND down at lower altitudes with possibly some action at the medium heights, the butcher bird was the hot thing the Germans had. The Fw-190 was made to kill and that is what it did. Many German aces racked up huge scores with these things. A FW-190 with a good pilot and staying within it's flight envelope was a stout opponent.

Japs

The Zero up until 1943 was superior to anything the Americans had. Mitsubishi made most of Japan's single engine fighters and basically all of the later fighters were just building on the Zero. As agile as a falcon and having the range of an albatross the Zero was put up on a pedestal by the Americans. Had the Germans got the diagrams for these planes in 1941, things might of have been different in Europe. Later in the war, the Jack and the Frank were similar and an improvement over the Zero or Zeke. But how good these were are never going to be known. Jacks and Franks found things pretty tough going up against literally swarms of Hellcats, Corsairs, and Lightnings.

Rusky's

Early in the war the Reds were in deep do-do. A series of costly decisions by the German ground machine gave the people of the Soviet Union a breather and the momentum swung against the Germans. The Soviet Fighters early in the war were all lackluster 1930 designs and not wirth mentioning, BUT, later in the war the Mig-3, Yak-3, Yak-7, and some of the Lagg fighters were all excellent, even outstanding fighter aircraft. Sparking one of the greatest turnarounds in history. Some of the Russian types were so feared, that the German pilots were told to avoid them. Another note was that if the German pilot was shot down behind the Russian lines, his future was definately not going to be fun. After the war, some of the Russian types were made available to the Americans and they were absolutely amazed at their performance.

Some of the Russian types were so feared, that the German pilots were told to avoid them.

Click to expand...

That is a myth however, a huge propoganda lie made by the Soviets, there simply was never issued such an order or recommendation. The German pilots didn't fear the Yak-3 or any other Soviet fighter at all, and they shot a lot more Yak-3's down than they lost to it, the Dora-9's of the JagdGeschwader completely slaughtering the Yak-3's whe'ever they met.

Tru dat Soren
Such claims were purely propaganda, though, those Yak's were a force to be reckoned with. The La-7 is IMO Russia's best. Though a bad candidate for high altitude work.

Some of the Russian types were so feared, that the German pilots were told to avoid them.

Click to expand...

I would have to say that was true. At least with the YAK-9's with a enlarged oil cooler.

The best American fighter at 20,000 feet and lower was easily the Corsair.
It's combination of speed, agility, firepower, range, warload, survivability and adaptability were at a level that no other U.S. plane could touch. The Germans never saw this plane with the exception of a few that flew for the FAA. The Jap aces after the war ALL said that it was the Corsair that they feared the most. Had the early teething problems with the F4U been fixed sooner, there would of have been no need for the F6F. In a fictional dogfight between the F6F and the F4U, all the F6F pilot could do would be to turn defensive circles (Lufberry's) The Hellcat was outmatched in every other category by the Corsair with the possible exception of range but as the Hellcat could only carry 3 theoretical drop tanks versus the 5 theoretical of the Corsair that could then be erased. The Mustang was actually put up against the F4U in carrier trials and mock combat (1943). Three Mustangs had their landing gear strengthened, various other structural upgrades, and givin' a tailhook. It was discovered that at low altitude(10,000 feet and lower) the Corsair was decidedly superior. At medium heights(10,000 - 20,000 feet) the F4U advantage started to fall off some, but the Corsair was still the fighter that you wanted to be in. At high altitude(20,000 feet and higher) the tables turned and the Mustang was the better plane.

Click to expand...

Agreed. Nice way of putting it.

I would have to say that was true.

Click to expand...

Do you have a source on this? Thanks!

Crumpp said:

Do you have a source on this? Thanks!

Click to expand...

"So good were these types [Yak 3] that in late 1944, Obstlt. Hermann Graf, JG52's GeschwaderKommodore, was compelled to instruct his pilots to "avoid combat below 5,000 metres altitude with Yakovlev fighters lacking a visible radiator under the nose".

Luftwaffe Colours Vol 5 Sect 2 "War in the East 1944-45"

the OKL issued a decree on 10 th June 1944 requiring all Luftwaffe fighters to avoid combat below 5,000m with any YAK fighter lacking an oil cooler under the nose

A conflict of dates but......