Best Fighter

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

Go to Google and type in "403 knots = ? mph".

Note, this converter/calculator is really quite good, you can convert almost any measurments or solve most math equations with it.

=S=

Lunatic

PS: It is too bad the P-38K was not produced, it would have been one hell of an E fighter. Top speed was still somewhat limited because of the wing design and drag characteristics, but climb performance and acceleration... wow!
 
From one mock combat situation where a Spitfire was bounced, you make out as if the Lightning was a better dogfighter? If any aircraft is bounced, it's in trouble.

More people believe the Spit. Mk. XIV to be the best dogfighter of the war than otherwise. I'm sure a Spit. could hang on the back of a Lightning with ease. The only things I can think of that have been stated in the past that were nearing matches were the Fw-190D-9 and, possibly, the Ta-152. The Spitfire just ran rings around the Zero.
 

Actually the account as I heard it was the two planes sized one another up and then entered a mutual dogfight, there was no "bouncing" involved. After two or 3 turns the P-38L got on the Spitfire's six and the Spit could not shake it. After a few minutes, the P-38 almost ate dirt following the Spitfire and the two pilots decided to break off the engagement.

The Spitfire could not hang on the six of the P-38L with ease. The P-38L was a very good low speed combat plane. If you got down near stall fighting it, you were in serious trouble. It's very good stall characteristics, and outstanding low speed acceleration and climb gave it a very big edge. Even if the enemy plane could technically out turn it, the P-38 could do a low speed hi-yoyo and stall right onto it's six, cutting the corner on the turn.

Spitfires in Singapor got eaten alive by Zero's in 1941/42.

=S=

Lunatic
 
Only at stall speed the Lightning could get on the Spitfire then. In other words, at every other engagement the Spitfire is at the advantage.

The Spitfires in Singapore gotten eaten alive by the Zeros? How is that so? The RAF in the Pacific didn't get Spitfires until 1943, when they started getting Spitfire Mk. VIII and Mk. Vs. In November 1943 the first two Spitfire squadrons arrived to the 3rd TAF (607 and 615) and then receiving another 2 squadrons in Feb. 1944 supplementing the Nine Hurricane squadrons already out there.
The air superiority was gained by the Mk. Vs and few Mk. VIIIs in the three forward squadrons while the Hurricanes covered the airfields as they re-armed and re-fueled. For every Allied loss, eight Japanese planes were shot down all because of the sharp defeats the Japs suffered at teh hands of the Spits.
 

I'll have to look up where the engagement was. I thought it was singapore but perhaps not. I might have confused Hurc's with spits too.

No I didn't say the Spitfire would easily win at any other speed, just that if it got into a serious turnfight and speeds were allowed to drop down near stall, the P-38 had a huge advantage.

At higher speeds, each plane had advantages and disadvantages. The P-38L far out-rolled the Spitfire at high speeds, so it would be very hard for the Spitfire to successfully engage a P-38L at very high speeds. At very high speeds, roll is more important than turn, since both plane's turning performance are going to be limited by pilot G tolerance, not what the plane can actually do.

At 250 IAS, the Spitfire would probably have the edge, but it wouldn't be huge and pilot skill would probably determine the victor. Both were excellent planes.

=S=

Lunatic
 
Are we mentioning clip-winged Spitfires too which had better peformance at lower altitudes than normal Spits?
 
Ahh but the clipped wing spitfires did not turn nearly so well as the full winged Spitfires. And even so, by 300 IAS the P-38L rolled better, and at even before that the ease of rolling it was making a difference. The P-38L (and some late model J's) were the only fighters of WWII to have power ailerons - it took only one hand to do a full speed roll at any speed. To get full roll performance out of the Sptifire required 50 lbs of stick force, that means both hands and putting your back into it.

=S=

Lunatic
 

You are correct that the turbos limiting factor was turbine speed. All turbo systems used on US aircraft were the same from what Ive read being that they were Minneapolis-Honeywell units. I only know about the later electronic versions though, not about the earlier mechanical versions found on B-17's and B-24's. I also am not familiar with those of the P-38 aside from the fact that they were MH units, so operation should be fairly similar as far as regulation and governors.

In B-17's, B-24's and B-29's there was a Turbo Boost Selector with 10 positions. Number 8 gave takeoff power, to turn past that to 9 and 10 there was a cam that had to be moved on the control to access these settings. 9 and 10 was War-Emergency Power settings and could not be used for more than 5 minutes. However I have read of certain instances where they have been used much longer. I know of one where a B-17 ran 3 engines on WEP for over an hour and another where a B-29 ran 2 engines on WEP for about 3 hrs!!

At this #10 WE setting the wastegate at the end of the turbo was completly closed allowing all exhaust to be diverted through the exhaust turbine.

The turbo control on B-17s and B-24s used four trimming potentiometers that could be adjusted. The B-29 (and B-36 for that matter) had the same setup but 8 trimpots as each engine had 2 turbos. More on the B-36 in a minute.

Each turbo was controled by a Waste Gate Motor, a Pressuretrol, a Governor, an Amplifier for each engine and the Turbo Control mentioned above.

The Waste gate motor controlled the open/close of the exhaust waste gate, which in effect, caused the exhaust driven turbine to spin..the more the waste gate was closed...the more the exhaust was diverted through the turbine and the faster the exhaust turbine spun. The intake impeller was directly connected to the exhaust turbine and the faster this spun the more air was fed into the intake and raised manifold pressure.

The governor monitored shaft speed and kept the turbo from overspeeding. This was the final limiting factor for the turbo performance and could come into play at anytime. The pressuretrol was also part of the governor system in that as altitude increases, density of air decreases. With this decreased density the turbine has less resistance and can overspeed. So above 27000 feet the pressuretrol reduced manifold pressure by 1"Hg for every 1000 feet gained. This number is from an early unit however and as the war progressed better materials and design allowed higher altitudes to be reached while maintaining the same level of power. All this translates into is that the turbines were allowed to spin faster.

Most times as well these high setting wouldnt be used and the turbines really didnt have go turn so fast. Especially with bombers, they would go over target at a fairly slow speed compared to their maximum speed. One B-17 flight engineer/top turret gunner I know states that on bombing missions their cruise speed was set somewhere around 155~160 mph by the flight leader. B-29's were faster cruising around 220mph all the way to Japan and back.

Fighters like the P-38 and P-47 I would say would definatly be much harder on their turbos as during dogfighting there would be a much greater tendancy to use WEP as well as constantly varying throttle positions. This could be another reason to use lower turbine speeds with the fighters.

In all turbos were clearly superior in response and flexibility and as better design and materials were used even better performance could be achieved.

Anyway I said I was going to mention some stuff on the B-36 turbo system. This was a different setup as above 40000 feet one turbo would be shut off and the engine would run on a single turbo. This was done because at the very high altitudes the B-36 could reach exhaust flow and power became so low that the turbos fell below their efficiency range and harsh pulsations of power would result. Shutting off one turbo and redirecting all exhaust flow through one turbo would raise the turbine speed, improve efficiency and eliminate surging. Also the B-36 with the R-4360 engine didn't have a War-Emergency setting and also only had a Turbo Boost Selector with 7 positions. Takeoff power was max power and was obtained at #7! Some later B-36's had water injection, not for use in a combat setting, but to provide extra power for takeoff.
 

After checking the account I read you are correct.
 
It could still roll faster, the adrenaline in a man is going to push him to physical limits to make his plane roll in extreme circumstances. If a Spitfire can roll well with a Fw-190 (although not as quick) then it's going to roll with a Lightning better.

The Lightning is also going to have to use his flaps to turn inside the Spitfire. If we're getting into a clean-cut turning-fight the Mk. IX might serve a little better...but you should know, no fight was clean cut...
 

The P-38 also had differential throttle which could be quite effective. The P-38 was capable of ACM with any other fighter at any speed. In some of these situations pilot experiance could make all the difference.

Above 300/350mph and above the P-38 could roll faster. The power controls added to continued effectivness made a substantial difference.

Yes they used everything they had!!
 
50 mph is a big difference...

Unless bounced the Spitfire is going to be rolling off the Lightning because combat often dropped below 300, even at high altitude. This would depend on the pilot but the Spitfire is going to feel advantages at every level. And many people claim the Spit was the best dogfighter, that wouldn't appear for no reason.
 



As LG pointed out turning becomes more inportant below 300mph also acceleration which are both strong suites of the P-38. As shown before the Spitfire XIV couldn't shake the P-38 or even keep it off it's tail doesn't that define the difference?
 

Generally speaking, the P-38L is considered the fastest rolling plane of WWII at high speeds. Both the Spitfire and the FW190 rolled very well lower speeds, but it dropped of very fast after it peaked (about 200 IAS for the Spit, 255 IAS for the FW).





To understand the charts you will have to keep in mind the first chart is in IAS, the second is in TAS. Given the FW info, it can be seen that the P-38L surpasses the FW in RoR at about 300 IAS, and the Spitfire well before that speed. Also, because of the very sharp change in rate of roll after the peak, the pilot's ability to utilize roll for precise combat manuvers in either the Spitfire or the FW is somewhat limited. In a dive, to do a precise roll and turn (like in rolling scissors), the pilot would have to calculate for the airspeed to know how long to stick over, but of course this is changing as he's doing the calculation...

Adrenaline is not going to prevent fatigue. Fatigue is always an issue when engaging in combat. The harder it is to do the things you need to do, the less well you will do them. And flying is a complicated thing, there are lots of things to do. Clearly if both your hands are on the stick to roll, you cannot also be cutting throttle back, let alone adjusting pitch or caging and uncaging gyros for your computing sights.

The P-38's flowler flaps are much better suited to combat manuvering than the hinge flaps on the Spitfire. But as I said, this is not how the P-38 would turn inside the Spitfire (though they might also be used). Instead, the P-38 would pull its nose up, slowing it down, and then roll slightly and stall over to get inside the track of the Spitfire, then use its huge acceleration advantage to make up the energy. At very low speeds the very good stall characteristics of the P-38 vs the rather poor stall characteristics of the Spitfire were an advantage.

Again I point out that mock dogfights generally degenerate into very slow turn fights. All WWII planes were "underpowered" by modern aerobatic standards. Once the hard deck is approached (or the ground), these kind of fights become rather meaningless and the stall characteristics are what determine who can stick on who's six. What is significant about the Spit 14 vs. P-38L mock dogfight is that the P-38 got into a firing position first (not counting the H2H at the start). The P-38L pilot was new to the L model (it had just been delivered), the Spitfire XIV pilot... we don't know anything about him... he flew away and never said a thing. If the event hadn't been witnessed by dozens of people on the ground, it would probably not have been believed.

=S=

Lunatic
 
I can't even see the P-38 on the first chart.

Yes, flying is a difficult thing and it also takes a lot of thought. Where the P-38 turning inside the Spitfire takes a lot of thought, and a somewhat experienced pilot. Having to bank up, turn and reduce to stall on the inside of the Spitfire is not something a rookie would like doing. Where the Spitfire is turning on the inside of almost all aircraft of the war, with simple turning.

If we're looking at one on one combat it would rely on pilot skill but you look at the bigger picture, in combat stalling is a dangerous thing to do.
 

The P-38 is not on the top chart, the Spitfire is not on the bottom chart. The FW is on both charts. Thus I provided both charts so you could reasonably compare the P-38L to the Spitfire.

BTW: the Spitfire XIV was hardly the best turning Spitfire. It was much heavier than earlier versions and sacrificed manuverability for speed and climb rate.

The Spit V was probably the best turning spitfire, but it was of course badly outclassed by the FW190-A4 which outturned it at combat speeds and generally outperformed it. The Spitfire IX evened the playing field, and the German focus moved from dogfighters to bomber killers.

The high YoYo is a very standard combat manuver, even a rookie would have been trained in it, and any vetran worth his wings would know how to work such a manuver, especially USA pilots who were trained to utilize energy tactics. Flying near stall is of course dangerous, but the point I'm making is that it was very much easier to do in the P-38L than the Spitfire XIV. The Spitfire had a higher stall speed and its behaivor in a stall was much more violent and unpredictable. The P-38 was actually an easy plane to fly through a stall, it was extremely predictable and controllable.

=S=

Lunatic
 
WHAT ?!

The Spitfire Mk. V a better turning Spitfire than the Mk. IX ? Hey, talk to any veteran who flew both Mk. V and Mk. IX, they'll all say that the Mk. IX was the BEST Merlin engined Spitfire. No wonder why the Mk. IX was used until the end of the British decolonistion wars, while the Mk. V was not.
 
I did mention the Spit. Mk. IX earlier on, in a turning fight. The Spitfire is much more unpredictable in a stall, that's why you don't stall it.

The Spitfire would be turning sweetly inside most aircraft without having to stall, that's what I'm saying.

A lot of people still say the Mk. VIII was the best Merlin-engined Spitfire. The Mk. IX was a stop-gap, the Mk. VIII was the definitive model.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

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
25K
Lighthunmust
L
N
Best Aircrafts
Replies
4
Views
2K
TheMustangRider
O
Poor Aircraft, Best Pilot
Replies
4
Views
2K
net_sailor
  • Locked
Best Piston Engined Fighter Ever
8 9 10
Replies
187
Views
28K
lesofprimus
  • Locked
Ju-87 Stuka vulnerability to fighter attack
7 8 9
Replies
176
Views
35K
HoHun
H
Menu
Log in
Register