Bf-109 vs Spitfire vs Fw-190 vs P-51

[CORSNING]

You load a five pound chicken (Headless) into a special air cannon which has adjustable pressure. IIRC it had a limit of about 220Kts MV - to simulate an aircraft in the Pattern where Most of the big bird strikes occur.

HEADLESS??????????????? ............D@mm!t Bill, now what are we going to tell the Humane Society freaks????

 

[silence]

You load a five pound chicken (Headless) into a special air cannon which has adjustable pressure. IIRC it had a limit of about 220Kts MV - to simulate an aircraft in the Pattern where Most of the big bird strikes occur.

Yes, but how does one GET that job? What are the requirements? I have extensive use of a three-man slingshot, so could that help my application????????

 

[CORSNING]

What about the P47N? I know it was only used in the Pacific, but since we are dreaming anyway. It was FAST, REALLY FAST, climbed well, TOUGH, good FvsF armament, dived like a rock, had that ultra reliable R2800, and was PROVEN IN COMBAT(unlike the TA152 which we know little about). At 30,000 feet if you keep your speed up, your going to be hard to touch.

What are your thoughts?

The P-47M/N, F4U-4, Tempest II were not the topic or I would gladly have expanded on their performance.

Jeff

 

[BiffF15]

Silence,

It's yours! Only downside is the desk I'm currently flying doesn't have much performance...

Trust me, most fighter guys get the same cross section or breadth. I flew the Eagle for 17 years. Lots of improvements over that time, and more sense I stopped.

Cheers,

Biff

 

[tomo pauk]

...
If I'm not badly mistaking it, the MW-50 device was not fitted on the Ta-152s powered by the Jumo 213E. It was used to boost the Jumo 213F, the variant lacking an intercooler; the Ta-152s with Jumo 213F being even more rare than ones with 213E. Thanks for other excerpts

Reading a bit about the Ta-152, it was to be equipped with MW-50 device for the Jumo 213E, but, as Jeff stated, seem like it never took flight (literally). The MW-50 tank was to be installed to the H-1 subvariant, H-0 was without it.

 

[BiffF15]

What about the P47N? I know it was only used in the Pacific, but since we are dreaming anyway. It was FAST, REALLY FAST, climbed well, TOUGH, good FvsF armament, dived like a rock, had that ultra reliable R2800, and was PROVEN IN COMBAT(unlike the TA152 which we know little about). At 30,000 feet if you keep your speed up, your going to be hard to touch.

What are your thoughts?

Pinsog,

That is my favorite version of the Thunderbolt! Bubble canopy, bare metal, and the squared wing tips! I have read Bob Johnson's book on flying the Thunderbolt in ETO and he obviously spoke very high of it! It is my opinion it was an outstanding fighter and would have done well in Europe had it had the chance. Also it was an incremental improvement over the earlier models with excellent increases in both speed and range. I also remember reading it had better roll rate than the earlier models due to the squared wing tips.

Pro's: High top speed, excellent climb rate, excellent visibility, extraordinary firepower (8 of them), high dive speed, good or better maneuverability, air cooled engine (better combat survivability than liquid cooled), K-14 gun sight, seriously long ranged

Con's: size (bigger is not better in this regard), (flying missions from some small island to Japan and back - too much time over water in a single engined plane with low odds of being picked up by SAR in the event you needed them)

The above assessment is done without any fresh reading on the type so if I missed something obvious I apologize in advance. If I remember from Bob Johnson's book he also said you could tell Thunderbolt pilots by the size of the right arm and right leg (from wrestling that beast around)!

One thing to think about is employing the gun with these aircraft in a turning fight. The nose was in the way in almost ALL of them (my perspective), with the Fw-190D / Ta-152, P-47, P-51 being a little worse than some of the others. Look at a picture of an F-15, it's nose gets in the way too (the gun is about 6' off centerline {right wing root area} so MacAir canted the gun up 2.5 degrees {don't have to pull as much lead} and pointed it in just a little so the rounds cross aircraft centerline about 2000' out). It helps, but in high deflection shots I would just roll out some so I could see him better.

The P-51, P-47, F6F all had guns in the wings that had a point of convergence (rounds from each wing crossed each other). This caused a small dispersal of rounds where as the P-38, and some of the German aircraft had guns in the nose which allowed a better concentration of rounds on target. That's the theory anyway, however enough guys made Ace in other than P-38's so it must not have been that big of an impact.

Also in a previous post there was some discussion regarding cannon vice .50 cal. If I remember correctly the muzzle velocity of canon was much slower, which in turn means you have to lead your target even further. When fighting an aware bandit (in a dogfight or BFM) you are doing two things: maneuvering in relation to him and trying to shoot him down (gun in this example). You are doing only one of those at a time. You are either trying to stay behind him, or screwing that up by trying to gun him. Or, in other words, gunning someone ruins your BFM so if you miss you may cause a role reversal (worst case), be neutralized (everyone looking out the side windows at each other and no one dying), or extend your engagement (leaves the door open longer so someone else - your adversaries buddy) could come in a whack you. There is nothing like being in a big furball and getting something served up to you on a platter (someone else has made the bandit predictable but can't kill him) or circling said furball like a shark and killing spitters as they try to escape (Hartmann's tactics still stand the test of time).

Cheers,

Biff

 

[pinsog]

Pinsog,

That is my favorite version of the Thunderbolt! Bubble canopy, bare metal, and the squared wing tips! I have read Bob Johnson's book on flying the Thunderbolt in ETO and he obviously spoke very high of it! It is my opinion it was an outstanding fighter and would have done well in Europe had it had the chance. Also it was an incremental improvement over the earlier models with excellent increases in both speed and range. I also remember reading it had better roll rate than the earlier models due to the squared wing tips.

Pro's: High top speed, excellent climb rate, excellent visibility, extraordinary firepower (8 of them), high dive speed, good or better maneuverability, air cooled engine (better combat survivability than liquid cooled), K-14 gun sight, seriously long ranged

Con's: size (bigger is not better in this regard), (flying missions from some small island to Japan and back - too much time over water in a single engined plane with low odds of being picked up by SAR in the event you needed them)

The above assessment is done without any fresh reading on the type so if I missed something obvious I apologize in advance. If I remember from Bob Johnson's book he also said you could tell Thunderbolt pilots by the size of the right arm and right leg (from wrestling that beast around)!

One thing to think about is employing the gun with these aircraft in a turning fight. The nose was in the way in almost ALL of them (my perspective), with the Fw-190D / Ta-152, P-47, P-51 being a little worse than some of the others. Look at a picture of an F-15, it's nose gets in the way too (the gun is about 6' off centerline {right wing root area} so MacAir canted the gun up 2.5 degrees {don't have to pull as much lead} and pointed it in just a little so the rounds cross aircraft centerline about 2000' out). It helps, but in high deflection shots I would just roll out some so I could see him better.

The P-51, P-47, F6F all had guns in the wings that had a point of convergence (rounds from each wing crossed each other). This caused a small dispersal of rounds where as the P-38, and some of the German aircraft had guns in the nose which allowed a better concentration of rounds on target. That's the theory anyway, however enough guys made Ace in other than P-38's so it must not have been that big of an impact.

Also in a previous post there was some discussion regarding cannon vice .50 cal. If I remember correctly the muzzle velocity of canon was much slower, which in turn means you have to lead your target even further. When fighting an aware bandit (in a dogfight or BFM) you are doing two things: maneuvering in relation to him and trying to shoot him down (gun in this example). You are doing only one of those at a time. You are either trying to stay behind him, or screwing that up by trying to gun him. Or, in other words, gunning someone ruins your BFM so if you miss you may cause a role reversal (worst case), be neutralized (everyone looking out the side windows at each other and no one dying), or extend your engagement (leaves the door open longer so someone else - your adversaries buddy) could come in a whack you. There is nothing like being in a big furball and getting something served up to you on a platter (someone else has made the bandit predictable but can't kill him) or circling said furball like a shark and killing spitters as they try to escape (Hartmann's tactics still stand the test of time).

Cheers,

Biff

P47N Great visibility. You hit on that, being a real fighter pilot, I forgot about it just being an armchair pilot. Great having a REAL fighter pilot chime in. We all talk about speed, climb, turn, etc. but if you can't see them you can't kill them and you can't evade them either.

There is an ex F15 pilot that I go to church with, I doubt you would know him I know it is a big world out there. Dennis Cherry is his name. I don't know how long he has been retired or where he was stationed. Best guess is he is around 60 years old.

 

[wuzak]

A couple of posts suggest that the P-47N has a good rate of climb.

I can't find any data to support that. Anybody got some numbers?

 

[BiffF15]

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.

Drgondog,

I had heard of that test from some of my Viper buds. That canopy is awesome, turning it around "backwards" so the bow was in the back was pure genius. When learning BFM the canopy bow on an Eagle is great (helps you see the picture or understand when the ques are) but gets in the way eventually. I read John Boyd's book and how instrumental he was at influencing fighter design in the late 60's / early 70's, particularly with regard to the F-16.

Cheers,
Biff

 

[BiffF15]

Pinsog,
Sent you a PM.
Biff

 

[Shortround6]

A couple of posts suggest that the P-47N has a good rate of climb.

I can't find any data to support that. Anybody got some numbers?

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p47m-n-climb.jpg

A lot depends on the load being carried ( or how full the tanks are) and if WEP (2800hp) is used.

 

[Aozora]

Waaaaaay O.T...but kind of in keeping with our new member:

from Page 4

US Navy F-16s photos | F-16.net F-16.net - The ultimate F-16, F-22, F-35 reference

From Photos: McDonnell Douglas F-4F Phantom II Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net

 

[wuzak]

Still doesn't look all that fantastic to me.

 

[drgondog]

Drgondog,

I had heard of that test from some of my Viper buds. That canopy is awesome, turning it around "backwards" so the bow was in the back was pure genius. When learning BFM the canopy bow on an Eagle is great (helps you see the picture or understand when the ques are) but gets in the way eventually. I read John Boyd's book and how instrumental he was at influencing fighter design in the late 60's / early 70's, particularly with regard to the F-16.

Cheers,
Biff

I loved Boyd's Book also but the top fighter jocks that went through Nellis and Luke were 'less kind' regarding Boyd's flying skills - and yielded uncompromising YGTBSM to his claims. Billy Sparks, Al Logan and Boots Blesse apparently had their way with him at both Nellis and Luke in the 50's.

Sparky was particularly insightful regarding the flaws in Boyd's flat plate maneuver in to F-100 to cause an eager guy on his six to blow past him - citing a yo-yo in the vertical and come back when Boyd had lost a couple of 100 Kts and mushing all over the place. He concede rookies that did not have their fecal matter in a tidy bag could get sucked in but felt that Boyd was a 'legend in his own mind'.

 

[BiffF15]

Wuzak,
I agree. However, the N weighted in at 16.3k and the M at 13.3k. Both were heavy. The comparisons would be best served if the fuel loads and drag indexes (how much stuff is hanging on the outside) could in some way be standardized.
Cheers,
Biff

 

[Aozora]

A couple of posts suggest that the P-47N has a good rate of climb.

I can't find any data to support that. Anybody got some numbers?

Wuzak,
I agree. However, the N weighted in at 16.3k and the M at 13.3k. Both were heavy. The comparisons would be best served if the fuel loads and drag indexes (how much stuff is hanging on the outside) could in some way be standardized.
Cheers,
Biff

Two sets of charts comparing P-47 M N at about 13,300 and 16300 lbs: unfortunately they don't tell us whether the M was fitted with wing pylons
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p47m-n-climb.jpg

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p47m-n-speed.jpg

P-47M at design useful load = 205 gal fuel
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47m-republic-wepchart.jpg

P-47N-5-RE at 13,962 lbs

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47n-republic-wep.jpg

Differences between D, M N
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47-differences.jpg

 

[BiffF15]

I loved Boyd's Book also but the top fighter jocks that went through Nellis and Luke were 'less kind' regarding Boyd's flying skills - and yielded uncompromising YGTBSM to his claims. Billy Sparks, Al Logan and Boots Blesse apparently had their way with him at both Nellis and Luke in the 50's.

Sparky was particularly insightful regarding the flaws in Boyd's flat plate maneuver in to F-100 to cause an eager guy on his six to blow past him - citing a yo-yo in the vertical and come back when Boyd had lost a couple of 100 Kts and mushing all over the place. He concede rookies that did not have their fecal matter in a tidy bag could get sucked in but felt that Boyd was a 'legend in his own mind'.

The legend in his own mind is true of many people, but sometimes more highly visible in fighter pilots!

Q: How do you know you have a fighter pilot at your party?

A: He will tell you...

Pilots, and in particularly fighter pilots, can sometimes paint a more rosy picture than reality. Our friends, wives, and kids are there to keep us in check.

In earlier posts there was some quoting of a Ta-152 pilot regarding kill claims, Ta-152 kill claims, and losses in combat. I take ALOT of what I read with a grain of salt, and usually like to have more than one source in collaboration prior to calling it a fact.

Also from earlier posts there was some question as to what a pilot could see or know in combat. In particular there was comments about the crash of a Ta-152 which was seen by his flight lead, in conjunction with reported kills by an Allied pilot in the same area of a different type. Unobserved kills are exactly that. Look at gun footage on Youtube and you will notice A LOT of guys getting shot down who aren't jinking (guns defending). They are either in an established turn or wings level. Both are what should be considered unobserved because if a guy saw you shooting at him he would try to get the heck out of the way.

Having Situational Awareness (SA) is knowing what's going on with you and what is around you in space. It's not perfect (people aren't perfect) and it breathes in and out usually in proportion to a guys task loading. I could easily believe that the wingman was shot down unobserved, and mis-identified by the offender, without the flight lead having SA on it. I've seen it too many times in training.

Modern fighters have RWR (radar warning receivers) which alert you that someone has "locked" you up with their radar. When tapping an un-aware bandit or bandits, I would intentionally not lock them and shoot heat seeking missiles at them (and to be particularly wolfish I would shoot the guy on the far side of the formation from me so when I called a kill the "live" guys would look towards the "dead" guy and away from me buying a few seconds and hopefully another kill). We treated it like a game, but to quote the Spartans, "War is work". It is in your best interest to be good at it.

Biff

 

[pinsog]

The legend in his own mind is true of many people, but sometimes more highly visible in fighter pilots!

Q: How do you know you have a fighter pilot at your party?

A: He will tell you...

Pilots, and in particularly fighter pilots, can sometimes paint a more rosy picture than reality. Our friends, wives, and kids are there to keep us in check.

In earlier posts there was some quoting of a Ta-152 pilot regarding kill claims, Ta-152 kill claims, and losses in combat. I take ALOT of what I read with a grain of salt, and usually like to have more than one source in collaboration prior to calling it a fact.

Also from earlier posts there was some question as to what a pilot could see or know in combat. In particular there was comments about the crash of a Ta-152 which was seen by his flight lead, in conjunction with reported kills by an Allied pilot in the same area of a different type. Unobserved kills are exactly that. Look at gun footage on Youtube and you will notice A LOT of guys getting shot down who aren't jinking (guns defending). They are either in an established turn or wings level. Both are what should be considered unobserved because if a guy saw you shooting at him he would try to get the heck out of the way.

Having Situational Awareness (SA) is knowing what's going on with you and what is around you in space. It's not perfect (people aren't perfect) and it breathes in and out usually in proportion to a guys task loading. I could easily believe that the wingman was shot down unobserved, and mis-identified by the offender, without the flight lead having SA on it. I've seen it too many times in training.

Modern fighters have RWR (radar warning receivers) which alert you that someone has "locked" you up with their radar. When tapping an un-aware bandit or bandits, I would intentionally not lock them and shoot heat seeking missiles at them (and to be particularly wolfish I would shoot the guy on the far side of the formation from me so when I called a kill the "live" guys would look towards the "dead" guy and away from me buying a few seconds and hopefully another kill). We treated it like a game, but to quote the Spartans, "War is work". It is in your best interest to be good at it.

Biff

I know its off topic, but did you fight an F22 or an F35 before you stopped flying?

 

[Aozora]

Also from earlier posts there was some question as to what a pilot could see or know in combat. In particular there was comments about the crash of a Ta-152 which was seen by his flight lead, in conjunction with reported kills by an Allied pilot in the same area of a different type. Unobserved kills are exactly that. Look at gun footage on Youtube and you will notice A LOT of guys getting shot down who aren't jinking (guns defending). They are either in an established turn or wings level. Both are what should be considered unobserved because if a guy saw you shooting at him he would try to get the heck out of the way.

Having Situational Awareness (SA) is knowing what's going on with you and what is around you in space. It's not perfect (people aren't perfect) and it breathes in and out usually in proportion to a guys task loading. I could easily believe that the wingman was shot down unobserved, and mis-identified by the offender, without the flight lead having SA on it. I've seen it too many times in training.

Modern fighters have RWR (radar warning receivers) which alert you that someone has "locked" you up with their radar.
Biff

Some P-51D/Ks were fitted with AN/APS-13 rear warning radar:

Any ideas as to how useful this was?

 

[BiffF15]

Some P-51D/Ks were fitted with AN/APS-13 rear warning radar:

Any ideas as to how useful this was?

Aozora,

I read about that, and think it was prefaced with, "every man a flight lead"! I'm pretty sure it was not used after only a short time due to how many false warnings were received.

A great idea on paper that I don't think worked out.

Cheers,
Biff