Best Fighter in Service Before 1 September 1939
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Elvis
Chief Master Sergeant
Sorry Marcel, misinterpreted your post.
You're right, the Bf110 wasn't a good fighter.
Elvis
Elvis
Chief Master Sergeant
No, really, you weren't, but its not the end of the world, Vinnie.
Just work on being as clear as possible, in the future.
Elvis
Tzaw1
Airman 1st Class
From Francis H. Dean, America's Hundred-Thousand
Elvis
Chief Master Sergeant
The engines were "export specific".
Elvis
Elvis
was obvious i in the 7th i've writed that 109 and spit there were. So it's obvious that you don't read all the topics
A curiosity
there were only four fighters that runs enough over 500 km/h, two british and two germans: spit and hurri, 109 E and 110 C, both the couple with one engine RR merlin and DB 601, so theyr good speed was for good designs or for the good engines?
there were only four fighters that runs enough over 500 km/h, two british and two germans: spit and hurri, 109 E and 110 C, both the couple with one engine RR merlin and DB 601, so theyr good speed was for good designs or for the good engines?
Civettone
Tech Sergeant
Engines !!!
Engines is what it's all about. Sometimes I even go so far as to think of aircraft as nameless or typeless aircraft but with a specfic engine. So you would have a R-2800 fighter, a 2 x Jumo 211 bomber, an Ash 82 trainer, etc ... It puts things in perspective, more objective and without looking at a name with its connotation, or without looking at the looks of an aircraft. Just the stats and specifications, nothing more.
Kris
Engines is what it's all about. Sometimes I even go so far as to think of aircraft as nameless or typeless aircraft but with a specfic engine. So you would have a R-2800 fighter, a 2 x Jumo 211 bomber, an Ash 82 trainer, etc ... It puts things in perspective, more objective and without looking at a name with its connotation, or without looking at the looks of an aircraft. Just the stats and specifications, nothing more.
Kris
Condora
Airman 1st Class
Come on, there's a bit of both: you have lots of examples of different planes with the same engine, and some are not as good as the others...
red admiral
Senior Airman
- 479
- Mar 24, 2005
A curiosity
there were only four fighters that runs enough over 500 km/h, two british and two germans
Macchi C.200 is just in squadron service by the start of the war. Re 2000 flying but not ordered for RAI so no production.
it was not in squadron service. the 10° gruppo that get some planes in august but they prefereed the biplanes so go back the planes to 6° gruppo, the delivery were slow (29 at 10th november) not a squadriglia was ready before of war.
The speed of macchi it 's ~500 km/h with my "runs enough over 500 km/h" i wanted a plane actually over (like a 510 km/h)
Elvis
Chief Master Sergeant
You are correct.
I responded to the initial question, which is the subject of this thread, not the ongoing conversation that had ensued.
However, it was your response to my post that was not clear.
You wrote that NONE of my choices were in service by 9/1/39, and that, my friend, was an incorrect statement (as I proved in a later response).
That is all you stated in that response.
If you were commenting on some of my choices, then you needed to note those specific aircraft in your response.
You did not, thus your response was not clear because it did not completely state the point you were trying to make.
OK, this needs to get dropped now.
You weren't clear in your response. Live with it, don't live with, I don't care, but its getting petty.
I am not going to respond to anymore comments on this particular matter, in this thread.
If you must continue this, PM me.
Elvis
Civettone
Tech Sergeant
Someone should make a graph of maximum speed vs horsepower. Or perhaps not only maximum power but rather a coefficient of performance.
It's simply no coincidence that the best fighter are usually the fighters with the most powerful engines. Just look at what the best fighters of WW1 were.
Spad XIII, Camel, SE.5a, F.2B, D-VII, D-XII, Ballila, ... all had the most powerful engines available. Also when looking at the twenties and thirties, the best fighters seem to have the most powerful engines available. For instance: in the early thirties they all had 300-350 hp, mid thirties the engine power was around 650 hp, and all those fighters were similar in performance.
When we think about inferior fighters, they usually have less power than the ones we consider to be superior. How rare is it that fighters with less powerful engines are superior to more powerful fighters?
Of course the aircraft design matters. But I often notice that a fighter can catch up with another design as soon as they upgrade the engine. Just look at Japanese fighters and at Italian fighters. Both countries were using rather outdated designs (technically speaking) but as soon as they could use engines with decent power they could compete with allied adversaries.
I'll even go further: I think there are few fighter aircraft with similar engine power and engine/weight ratio which differ sufficient to call one superior to the other. As such there are few really bad fighter designs...
Of course you could mention the Defiant but that's an obvious exception as it was in no way comparable to a conventional fighter. But even then, it did reach 500 kmh just like the Hotspur. I mean, just look at the Blackburn Roc and what it did with the 300 hp weaker Bristol engine.
One should make a list of all fighters together with their HP.
Kris
It's simply no coincidence that the best fighter are usually the fighters with the most powerful engines. Just look at what the best fighters of WW1 were.
Spad XIII, Camel, SE.5a, F.2B, D-VII, D-XII, Ballila, ... all had the most powerful engines available. Also when looking at the twenties and thirties, the best fighters seem to have the most powerful engines available. For instance: in the early thirties they all had 300-350 hp, mid thirties the engine power was around 650 hp, and all those fighters were similar in performance.
When we think about inferior fighters, they usually have less power than the ones we consider to be superior. How rare is it that fighters with less powerful engines are superior to more powerful fighters?
Of course the aircraft design matters. But I often notice that a fighter can catch up with another design as soon as they upgrade the engine. Just look at Japanese fighters and at Italian fighters. Both countries were using rather outdated designs (technically speaking) but as soon as they could use engines with decent power they could compete with allied adversaries.
I'll even go further: I think there are few fighter aircraft with similar engine power and engine/weight ratio which differ sufficient to call one superior to the other. As such there are few really bad fighter designs...
Of course you could mention the Defiant but that's an obvious exception as it was in no way comparable to a conventional fighter. But even then, it did reach 500 kmh just like the Hotspur. I mean, just look at the Blackburn Roc and what it did with the 300 hp weaker Bristol engine.
One should make a list of all fighters together with their HP.
Kris
Civettone
Tech Sergeant
Ok, I devoted half an hour looking up this information from wikipedia
They are all fighters from the 20s. I've listed them by engine power.
Perhaps the 20s were not the best choice as back in those days, fighter designs mainly focused on manoeuvrability and not so much on speed. But not to let the effort go to waste, here it is:
Spad S.81/1 with Hispano-Suiza 8Fb inline engine, 224 kW (300 hp) 240 km/h (149 mph)
Fiat CR.1 with Isotta-Fraschini Asso V8 engine, 239 kW (320 hp) 270 km/h (168 mph) !
Fiat CR.20 with Fiat A.20, 306 kW (410 hp) 270 km/h (167 mph)
Gourdou-Leseurre GL.30 with a Gnome-Rhône 9Ady, 313 kW (420 hp) 250 km/h (155 mph)
Gloster Gamecock with Bristol Jupiter VI 9-cylinder radial, 425 hp (317 kW) 155 mph 250 km/h
Fairey Firefly I with Curtiss D.12C 12-cylinder inline liquid-cooled, 430 hp 185 mph (298 km/h)
Bristol Bulldog with Bristol Jupiter VII radial piston engine, 440 hp (328 kW) 178 mph, 287 km/h
Gloster Goldfinch with Bristol Jupiter VIIF 9-cylinder supercharged radial, 450 hp (335 kW) 172 mph (276 km/h)
Gloster Gorcock with Napier Lion IV 12-cylinder broad arrow water cooled, 450 hp (335 kW) 164 mph (263 km/h)
NiD 42 C1 with Hispano-Suiza 12Hb, 336 kW (450 hp) 265 km/h (165 mph)
AW Siskin with Armstrong Siddeley Jaguar IV radial engine, 450 hp (336 kW) 156 mph, 251 km/h
Fokker D-XVI with Armstrong Siddeley Jaguar, 340 kW (460 hp) 330 km/h (205 mph)
Fairey Firefly II with Rolls-Royce F.XIS 12-cylinder inline liquid-cooled, 480 hp (358 kW) 223 mph (359 km/h)
Dewoitine D-27 with Hispano-Suiza 12Mc liquid-cooled V12 engine, 373 kW (500 hp) 312 km/h (194 mph)
Svenska Jaktfalken with Bristol Jupiter VIIF radial engine, 520 hp (388 kW) 310 km/h (193 mph)
Fokker D-XIII with Napier Lion XI, 425 kW (570 hp) 270 km/h (170 mph)
Fokker D-XIV with Hispano-Suiza 12Hb, 440 kW (590 hp) 274 km/h (170 mph)
Also ... they date from 1923 to 1929. Some have supercharged engines which means they achieve higher speed at altitude which was not possible for other aircraft.
But look at that Fiat CR.1: very manoeuvrable but also very fast with merely 320 hp!
Kris
They are all fighters from the 20s. I've listed them by engine power.
Perhaps the 20s were not the best choice as back in those days, fighter designs mainly focused on manoeuvrability and not so much on speed. But not to let the effort go to waste, here it is:
Spad S.81/1 with Hispano-Suiza 8Fb inline engine, 224 kW (300 hp) 240 km/h (149 mph)
Fiat CR.1 with Isotta-Fraschini Asso V8 engine, 239 kW (320 hp) 270 km/h (168 mph) !
Fiat CR.20 with Fiat A.20, 306 kW (410 hp) 270 km/h (167 mph)
Gourdou-Leseurre GL.30 with a Gnome-Rhône 9Ady, 313 kW (420 hp) 250 km/h (155 mph)
Gloster Gamecock with Bristol Jupiter VI 9-cylinder radial, 425 hp (317 kW) 155 mph 250 km/h
Fairey Firefly I with Curtiss D.12C 12-cylinder inline liquid-cooled, 430 hp 185 mph (298 km/h)
Bristol Bulldog with Bristol Jupiter VII radial piston engine, 440 hp (328 kW) 178 mph, 287 km/h
Gloster Goldfinch with Bristol Jupiter VIIF 9-cylinder supercharged radial, 450 hp (335 kW) 172 mph (276 km/h)
Gloster Gorcock with Napier Lion IV 12-cylinder broad arrow water cooled, 450 hp (335 kW) 164 mph (263 km/h)
NiD 42 C1 with Hispano-Suiza 12Hb, 336 kW (450 hp) 265 km/h (165 mph)
AW Siskin with Armstrong Siddeley Jaguar IV radial engine, 450 hp (336 kW) 156 mph, 251 km/h
Fokker D-XVI with Armstrong Siddeley Jaguar, 340 kW (460 hp) 330 km/h (205 mph)
Fairey Firefly II with Rolls-Royce F.XIS 12-cylinder inline liquid-cooled, 480 hp (358 kW) 223 mph (359 km/h)
Dewoitine D-27 with Hispano-Suiza 12Mc liquid-cooled V12 engine, 373 kW (500 hp) 312 km/h (194 mph)
Svenska Jaktfalken with Bristol Jupiter VIIF radial engine, 520 hp (388 kW) 310 km/h (193 mph)
Fokker D-XIII with Napier Lion XI, 425 kW (570 hp) 270 km/h (170 mph)
Fokker D-XIV with Hispano-Suiza 12Hb, 440 kW (590 hp) 274 km/h (170 mph)
Also ... they date from 1923 to 1929. Some have supercharged engines which means they achieve higher speed at altitude which was not possible for other aircraft.
But look at that Fiat CR.1: very manoeuvrable but also very fast with merely 320 hp!
Kris
Shortround6
Major General
I think you are on to something.
Perhaps a thread of it's own?
Perhaps a thread of it's own?
Elvis
Chief Master Sergeant
"...Tower Control calling Captain HoHun and his Graph of Democracy.
Captain, this thread is in danger! WE NEED YOUR HELP!!!
...calling Captain Hohun...come in, Captain Hohun!..."
Sorry, my brain does strange things later at night, like channel old time Saturday afternoon matinee movie serial-esque type responses.
Seriously, if you need a graph(s) done, Hohun's your man. That guy does some real beautiful work.
Elvis
Yes kris
engines were very important. Look for ex. the quantum leap from Bf 109D to 109E. There was some major redesign in cooling systems but main difference was the change from Jumo 210 D to DB601A.
Also the big improvement when Spitfire IX was created, it was in essence a Spitfire V with some local strengthening powered by the new 60 Series Merlin instead of Merlin 45 or 46.
And P-51A vs P-51B.
Juha
engines were very important. Look for ex. the quantum leap from Bf 109D to 109E. There was some major redesign in cooling systems but main difference was the change from Jumo 210 D to DB601A.
Also the big improvement when Spitfire IX was created, it was in essence a Spitfire V with some local strengthening powered by the new 60 Series Merlin instead of Merlin 45 or 46.
And P-51A vs P-51B.
Juha
Civettone
Tech Sergeant
yeah Hohun is amazing. But he has helped me out so much in the past already so I think I'll give him a break
Kris
Kris
Re: BF-109D
Due to the adamance of posters regarding the Jumo engine am currently investigating primary sources, which I had previously taken on face value from the work of people such as Alfred Price (whom also used primary sources as the basis of research, but closer to the end of the war when a lot of it was still a mess).
What I'm turning up is getting more confusing by the minute. I've photos of JGr 132 with OOB for 109D and pictures of what appear to me to be 109C. I have anecdotes from LEMB members I've PM'd for documentation saying they've "seen photographs of 109D in service which are definitely fitted with Daimler motors" and am waiting for some to be sent to my email box.
So far I have planview drawings sent to me of both Jumo and Daimler engine 109 and both of them have radiators under the nose (the external differences being exhaust stacks and air intake). Certainly the two DB600 protoypes had the radiators moved to the wings suchlike the Emil. But now it seems there are at least three 109D outlays, one which is really a 109C (aside from the engine no changes whatsoever that have yet been identified to me were made between the C and D variants), also a DB600 engine with the radiator under the nose, and what maybe propaganda photos of the DB600 engine with the radiators moved to the wings.
I'll post updates as I have them. In the case of the Jumo engine 109D this is appears to be a wholly administrative variant change, with no actual change on the production line from the C to the D. But as mentioned the planview with a DB600 and radiator under the nose is fascinating, other than the obvious difference of the exhaust stacks it looks pretty much identical to a 109C at first glance. Weird.
Due to the adamance of posters regarding the Jumo engine am currently investigating primary sources, which I had previously taken on face value from the work of people such as Alfred Price (whom also used primary sources as the basis of research, but closer to the end of the war when a lot of it was still a mess).
What I'm turning up is getting more confusing by the minute. I've photos of JGr 132 with OOB for 109D and pictures of what appear to me to be 109C. I have anecdotes from LEMB members I've PM'd for documentation saying they've "seen photographs of 109D in service which are definitely fitted with Daimler motors" and am waiting for some to be sent to my email box.
So far I have planview drawings sent to me of both Jumo and Daimler engine 109 and both of them have radiators under the nose (the external differences being exhaust stacks and air intake). Certainly the two DB600 protoypes had the radiators moved to the wings suchlike the Emil. But now it seems there are at least three 109D outlays, one which is really a 109C (aside from the engine no changes whatsoever that have yet been identified to me were made between the C and D variants), also a DB600 engine with the radiator under the nose, and what maybe propaganda photos of the DB600 engine with the radiators moved to the wings.
I'll post updates as I have them. In the case of the Jumo engine 109D this is appears to be a wholly administrative variant change, with no actual change on the production line from the C to the D. But as mentioned the planview with a DB600 and radiator under the nose is fascinating, other than the obvious difference of the exhaust stacks it looks pretty much identical to a 109C at first glance. Weird.
