Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The Me262's top speed was achieved at higher altitudes, as was the P-80 and Meteor Mk.III - side note: when checking the Meteor Specs at Wiki, they list the post-war Meteor F.8 specs, not wartime Mk.III Specs.Also, I'm not sure of the Me-262, but early British jets like the Vampire were better performers as far as speed (and maybe climb) at low altitude vs higher altitudes.
This graph is interesting in that it shows that by then military aviation was in the process of switching to measuring speed in knots rather than mph. Yet someone has felt it necessary to print a few specific speeds in mph on top of the graph (though I guess that could have been done much later, given it seems to be a much different font from the original used in the graph).FWIW the speed envelope graph for the F-51H SAC from March 1949 shows the following speeds at WEP with ADI.
471 mph at 22,700 ft
446 mph at 9,000 ft
410 mph at sea level
View attachment 765462
I guess you can have things that are good at any altitude. Like a low drag design such as the P-51. And then you have things that help at some altitudes and are a negative at other altitudes. Like the huge wing and pressurized cockpit on the Ta 152H are good for high altitude, but detract from performance at lower altitude.So is the answer more boost/more power across the board regardless of altitude? That much seems obvious but how do you get a plane to perform well at both say sea level to 5000 ft vs 30,000 ft? I know that supercharger gearing and drive has a lot to do with it, but is it possible to get one without taking away from the other (I also know that two stage, multi or variable speed superchargers were a big help here).
It does?A P-40 runs pretty good at 80", too.
you bet.It does?
Here's one that shows differently.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/Comparative_Fighter_Performance.jpg
Both from the same site! Go figure, hujh.