Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
A reality that most gamers have no concept of. This is true no matter what aircraft you fly, it talks to you in many ways.Silence,
With a fighter you are constantly max performing it, and you become VERY aware of what your plane is doing from the way the controls feel, the rumbles, sounds, thumps, etc.
I would like to clarify the dry numbers of the potential of the fighters being compared. All the information I have on these come from the Kurfurst and wwiiaircraftperformance.org sights. Except the Fw190/Ta 152 info came from the graphs in Dietmar's "Longnose" and "Ta 152".
Meters..Bf.109K-4---Spitfire 14---Fw190D-9----P-51B-15----Tempest V--Ta152
It must be noted that the P-51B was introduced in late 1943 whereas the K-4 and D-9 were introduced in the fall of '44, well after the Luftwaffe bloodbath of early '44, and when they were really needed. The Tempest V was introduced in Jan. '44, and while prevented from the battle over Germany by limited range, was a great help post D-day. The Ta-152, coming out in '45 was never a factor and really should be compared to aircraft like the P-51H, P-47M/N, and F4U-4. Also missing is the powerful Spitfire XIV and Tempest II (which seem to be problematic).
Cockpit size can be a deceiving thing. F-16's have a small cockpit for a fighter (the A-4 has a TINY cockpit), and the Eagle has a large cockpit. I have 8 or 9 back seat rides in the F-16 and the cockpit has no canopy bow to block vision, feels great, the seat is reclined, the side stick controller is ergonomically outstanding, however the canopy is very close to your cranium. I actucally banged off of it once during a sortie.
Cheers,
Biff
...
"It is not known whether the Ta 152 with MW-50 or GM-1 power boosting were flown in action."
Engine: Jumo 213E: 1,900ps (1,875 hp.) 2.03ata.boost.
The F-16 canopy had to be re-designed following slow motion camera sequence showing large deflections when undergoing 'Mil Spec Chicken' test - during which the 5 pound chicken was shot at the canopy to simulate goose or duck impact. It deflected enough to impact dummy's head/helmet.
I would just like to let everyone know that no animals were hurt while filming this topic. The 5 pound chicken was wearing a suite of armor loaned to us by Stan Lee. The chicken was not harmed in any way.
WOW! BiffF15 and silence. You guys are really making the rest of us think hard. Excellent posts, both of you. I guess I have nothing to add to the angles you are coming from. Thank you both for that kind of insight. Silence, I owned a 1983 280 ZX "cop come get me red" so I can relate to that exact point you were making. I own a Del Sol now. It actually turns slightly tighter, BUT it doesn't give you that fealing of confidence in handling that the 280 did. So the 280 could be driven right up to its limits with ease. In the 3 dimentional sky that would be a great advantage.
I would like to clarify the dry numbers of the potential of the fighters being compared. All the information I have on these come from the Kurfurst and wwiiaircraftperformance.org sights. Except the Fw190/Ta 152 info came from the graphs in Dietmar's "Longnose" and "Ta 152".
The numbers are altitude in meters, speed in mph and climb in fpm.
Meters..Bf.109K-4---Spitfire 14---Fw190D-9----P-51B-15----Tempest V--Ta152
S.L.......378/4830----370/5080----380/4428----388/4330----404/4380----372
.1,000..397/4840----386/5035----392/4388----404/4220----417/3860----384
.2,000..411/4645----401/4985----404/4124----418/3870----411/3340----396
.3,000..420/4440----417/4485----409/4103----420/3840----411/3000----397
.4,000..428/4235----416/4095----419/3985----420/3770----410/2603----410
.5,000..437/4035----418/4070----429/3493----430/3590----426/2151----422
.6,000..446/3445----432/4025----429/2991----441/3100----436/1705----436
.7,000..442/2950----445/3510----422/2499----442/2620----431/1242----448
.8,000..438/2450----447/2960----416/1987----436/2125----428/.-806----451
.9,000..432/1940----444/2400----406/1485----430/1675----N.G./N.G.----464
10,000.422/1435----437/1875----394/.-984----421/1200----N.G./N.G.----458
11,000.409/.-945----427/1350----NG./-482----411/.-715----N.G./N.G.----448
12,000.390/.-440----414/.-825----NG./NG.-----393/.-245----N.G./N.G.----434
Wt.-----7,497 lbs.----7,923 lbs.---9,591.75 lbs.--9,680 lbs.(9,335 lbs.speed trials)-11,490 lbs. Weight at take-off.
W.L.:-----43.25--------32.73--------48.67---------40.06--------38.04+Wing Loading at take-off ( lbs./sq.ft.).
P.L.:------4.052+------3.569--------4.631+-------4.885---------5.223-Power loading at take-off weight and max. power output
(lbs./hp.)
Power:-1,850hp./1.8ata-2,220hp./+21 psi.-2,071hp./1.8ata-1,910hp./75"Hg.-2,200hp./+11 psi.
Engines: DB 605D---Griffon 65-----Jumo 213A----V-1650-7---Sabre IIA
For more Ta 152 information see POST #864.
The F-16 canopy had to be re-designed following slow motion camera sequence showing large deflections when undergoing 'Mil Spec Chicken' test - during which the 5 pound chicken was shot at the canopy to simulate goose or duck impact. It deflected enough to impact dummy's head/helmet.
I did a structural analysis using finite element model (STARDYNE and NASTRAN) to solve for desired cross section to sufficiently minimize the traveling wave amplitude.
With the above in mind here is my short synopsis on the core of the thread.
During the war there was a slow but constant improvement in the performance of fighters. Sometimes it resulted in a leap frog event, other times it didn't. Also realize that early war fighters were more point defense fighters (short ranged, very manuervable), and evolved into longer ranged, faster aircraft that in some instances didn't turn as well (that trend has continued almost to this day). The early Spits and 109's as compared to B-D Mustangs and late model 190's and it's variants (smaller lighter gave way to bigger heavier).
Also the ground rules at the start of this discussion might have alleviated some of the "groveling at the floor" that occured. And example might have been to compare the four types during different time frames, or at one certain time (which aircraft do you THINK was best and why). Or it could have been "which one would you have wanted to fly and why".
Using the comparing the types at a certain time mentality, I will nail it down to the last six months of WW2 and only the four types mentioned. I will also take the Hubble Telescope, turn it to face earth and WW2, zoom into these four aircraft types, and then zoom further in to 1 versus 1 (1 v 1) combat. If time allows I will back that out a little bit but will include my qualifiers.
1 v 1 only: Ta-152H (Remember I'm removing all other qualifiers and am assuming that it's me and him only, and that I'm a mercenary or have no allegiance to the combatants).
Pro's: Faster, higher ceiling, good armament (though not optimum for fighter on fighter), better or equal turn performance to Mustang (bit of an assumption here do to lack of actual combat reports and I didn't examine in detail all of Soren's charts), motor management much easier than contemporaries (less distraction to the pilot), flying over safe territory so jumping out left little fear of capture AND I could run myself low on gas and could land anywhere there was room.
Con's: Quality control (some were put together by slaves who had no problem sabatoging equipment), not completely tested or vetted, degraded maintenance (closing days of the war), limited fuel and of lower octane, pilots had less training and lower total time, not trained well for combat
If I were to zoom out one with the telescope and stipulate what would I have wanted to be flying in the last 6 months of the war, and it's not a pristine fight (not a pure 1 v 1) I would change to the P-51D.
Pro's: Better pilot training and in theater indoctrination, more experience before entering combat, better trained pilots, better quality control with equipment (aircraft in particular), armament (would take more "smaller" rounds over less "larger" rounds - this is a discussion all unto itself), better gun sight, tremendous visability and last but not least, way MORE of us than there are of them (when two almost equally talented / equipped groups fight, would definately want to be in the one with a serious numerical advanted)
Con's: Small speed disadvantage (as compared to the Ta-152 / Fw-190D), fighting over someone elses country, longer more tiring sorties (more opportunity to become complacent and therefor killed)
Okay, let the darts be thrown!
Biff
The F-16 canopy had to be re-designed following slow motion camera sequence showing large deflections when undergoing 'Mil Spec Chicken' test - during which the 5 pound chicken was shot at the canopy to simulate goose or duck impact. It deflected enough to impact dummy's head/helmet.
I would just like to let everyone know that no animals were hurt while filming this topic. The 5 pound chicken was wearing a suite of armor loaned to us by Stan Lee. The chicken was not harmed in any way.
I wanna know how you get the job of chicken-shooter; I'd be real good at it.
As a side note, my grandmother's brother was a P-47 pilot over France. In an newspaper interview he did while training he stated that the scariest thing that ever happened to him while flying (up to that time) was a mid-air bird strike. I get the impression that the bird was not a chicken fired from an AA gun.