Climb rate.

[starling]

Hey guys,it's me again.Forgive me if this question has been asked before(I did check the search box).
Before the jet and rocket aircraft had been developed ,which piston aircraft of ww2 had the fastest climb rate.? Thanks,starling.

 

[tyrodtom]

I don't know if you can count the F8F Bearcat as a WW2 fighter, it was operational before the end of WW2, but never saw combat. It had a roc of 4600 ft per min., that's probably initial rate of climb.
The late model Me 109K would probably be a close contender for the best.
The little CW-21 had a pretty high rate of climb too, if the figures stated for it can be believed.

Hopefully one of the board scholars will post some graphs, or more precise figures.

 

[Shortround6]

Hey guys,it's me again.Forgive me if this question has been asked before(I did check the search box).
Before the jet and rocket aircraft had been developed ,which piston aircraft of ww2 had the fastest climb rate.? Thanks,starling.

Fastest for how long (or high)

Some planes could climb very well at sea level and for 1-3 minutes and then tended to "flame out".

Others started a bit slower but could maintain a good climb for a number of minutes.

A select few could both climb well at sea level and keep climbing well 5-10 minutes later.

Do you want the fastest in FPM ( or meters per sec) at sea level or fastest to 10,000ft ( 3000 meters ) or 20,000ft (6,000) meters or???????

 

[davebender]

Fw-187 probably had the fastest rate of climb during 1939 along with a level speed of 395mph. Makes me wonder how fast this lightweight aircraft would climb powered by a pair of 2,000 hp DB605D engines during 1945.

 

[cimmex]

Do you think that you can stress a 2x1000hp airframe with 2x2000hp?
cimmex

 

[davebender]

I'll let the engineers sort that out.

Ju-88 and Me-210 airframes made the switch to heavier and more powerful DB603 engines so I wouldn't bet against a Fw-187 powered by DB605D engines.

 

[krieghund]

What is the weight and power requirements? Combat weight, normal take-off weight? Maximum power, balls to the wall, ignore the time limits? Time from take-off or altitude to altitude without zoom effect?

 

[davebender]

Most WWII aerial combat probably happened between 5,000 and 20,000 feet. So how about a climb from 10,000 to 15,000 feet?
- Normal combat weight. Full ammo load. 75% fuel remaining. No drop tank(s).
- War Emergency Power.
- Starting from level flight @ economical cruise speed of 275mph.

 

[Jabberwocky]

Hey guys,it's me again.Forgive me if this question has been asked before(I did check the search box).
Before the jet and rocket aircraft had been developed ,which piston aircraft of ww2 had the fastest climb rate.? Thanks,starling.

Spitfire, 109K and late P-63's were probably the kings of climb, although I don't have data for some of the late Soviet types, which would have been very spritely at lower altitudes.

Spitfire Mk IX, fully armed, was tested at 5740 ft/min in October 1943, with the Merlin 66 running at 25 lbs boost on 150 octane fuel. Ran with rads closed. Service examples at 25 lbs boost were probably good for about 5100-5200 ft/min with rads open.

Spitfire Mk XIV was tested at 4850 ft min with the Griffon 65 at +18. Later examples were cleared for +21 boost, with estimated performance of about 5150 ft/min.

Bf-109K was calculated at 24.9 m/sec (4920 ft/min) with MW/50 and a DB 605 ASM at 1.98 ata

P-63A-10 was tested at 5000 ft min in 1944.

Topping all these were very late piston aircraft such as the F8F, Hornet/Sea Hornet and Sea Fury, all of which made over 5000 ft/min in combat trim.

 

[stona]

Bf-109K was calculated at 24.9 m/sec (4920 ft/min) with MW/50 and a DB 605 ASM at 1.98 ata.

I'm glad that you said "calculated"

Cheers
Steve

 

[glennasher]

What about the P-38? It was designed as an interceptor originally, so I'd suspect it climbed at a good clip.

 

[starling]

Hey guys,the fastest to,28.000 foot.Starling.

 

[krieghund]

From take-off or in flight, weight power?

 

[CobberKane]

One very important thing to consider when considering rate of climb is how fast the aircraft is moving forward as it moves upward. For instance, at the right altitude and speed a 1940 Zero could climb (briefly) at 5000 ft/min, about the same rate as a Spitfire XIV of 1944. The differrence is that the Spit would have been climbing at a more shallow angle from the horizontal, but matching the Zero's vertical velocity due to it's greater horizontal speed. Hence, if the Zero were on the tail of the Spitfire and both were at their optimum climbing speed, the Zero might have matched the Spit in vertical velocity but all the time the Spit would have been opening the gap between the two very quickly. Alternatively, if the Spit were on the Zero's tail, it would be climbing vertically at the same rate as the Zero but would overshoot it very quickly.
I've often thought this is a little understood consideration when considering the relative climb rates of fighters. It seems that generally the fighter that climbed with a greater forward speed had the advantage in that the pilot could dictate the terms of the fight. I'd be interested to hear from anyone more knowlegable on the subject.

 

[davebender]

That's a specialized mission. We would need to consider Me-109 and Spitfire models powered by high altitude engines. Not the bulk of Me-109s and Spitfires which were designed for combat at lower altitudes.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

One very important thing to consider when considering rate of climb is how fast the aircraft is moving forward as it moves upward. For instance, at the right altitude and speed a 1940 Zero could climb (briefly) at 5000 ft/min, about the same rate as a Spitfire XIV of 1944. The differrence is that the Spit would have been climbing at a more shallow angle from the horizontal, but matching the Zero's vertical velocity due to it's greater horizontal speed. Hence, if the Zero were on the tail of the Spitfire and both were at their optimum climbing speed, the Zero might have matched the Spit in vertical velocity but all the time the Spit would have been opening the gap between the two very quickly. Alternatively, if the Spit were on the Zero's tail, it would be climbing vertically at the same rate as the Zero but would overshoot it very quickly.
I've often thought this is a little understood consideration when considering the relative climb rates of fighters. It seems that generally the fighter that climbed with a greater forward speed had the advantage in that the pilot could dictate the terms of the fight. I'd be interested to hear from anyone more knowlegable on the subject.

Vx Vy

 

[timmy]

I just don't understand Climb rates Period ?

Like if you give me specs on an aircraft.. Power/Weight/Aerodynamics I then have got a fair idea on whether that plane is going to be fast or slow

But if I do the same thing trying to Guess Climb rates I always seem to guess wrong. Now I know light weight is important for climb.
As well as Big propellers and Big Engine capacity with torque help as well ..and with things like 2 stage superchargers I guess.

But if I read up on say one aircraft like a Tempest V ,weight 9000lb, 2100 hp against say a F4U-4 which also has weight 9000lb, 2100 hp and both have Big 4 blade propellers

You would then guess the climb rates would be the same ???? Wrong, most articles put the Tempest in the 5000ft /min mark against the F4U-4 4000ft/min

So what gives ????

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I just don't understand Climb rates Period ?

Like if you give me specs on an aircraft.. Power/Weight/Aerodynamics I then have got a fair idea on whether that plane is going to be fast or slow

But if I do the same thing trying to Guess Climb rates I always seem to guess wrong. Now I know light weight is important for climb.
As well as Big propellers and Big Engine capacity with torque help as well ..and with things like 2 stage superchargers I guess.

But if I read up on say one aircraft like a Tempest V ,weight 9000lb, 2100 hp against say a F4U-4 which also has weight 9000lb, 2100 hp and both have Big 4 blade propellers

You would then guess the climb rates would be the same ???? Wrong, most articles put the Tempest in the 5000ft /min mark against the F4U-4 4000ft/min

So what gives ????

Timmy,
it's not as easy as you think. One has to consider the propeller/ engine / airframe combination as well as weight, let alone the basic aerodynamics of the aircraft's wing surface that will make it a good climber. A weather factor called density altitude plays in as well. All this for starters...

Google Vx and Vy and this will give you some basic information about climb as well...

 

[Shortround6]

I just don't understand Climb rates Period ?



But if I do the same thing trying to Guess Climb rates I always seem to guess wrong. Now I know light weight is important for climb.
As well as Big propellers and Big Engine capacity with torque help as well ..and with things like 2 stage superchargers I guess.

But if I read up on say one aircraft like a Tempest V ,weight 9000lb, 2100 hp against say a F4U-4 which also has weight 9000lb, 2100 hp and both have Big 4 blade propellers

You would then guess the climb rates would be the same ???? Wrong, most articles put the Tempest in the 5000ft /min mark against the F4U-4 4000ft/min

So what gives ????

Power available for climb ( power to weight ratio for climb????) is the power left over (surplus) after you take out the power needed to fly level at the "best climb speed". best climb speed for one aircraft is not the same as another. It is the speed at which the plane needs the least amount of power to maintain level flight and this is NOT stalling speed or just above. A wing will only give so much lift at a certain incidence ( angle of attack) and a certain speed. Lower the speed and the angle of attack has to increase for level flight, but as the angle of attack goes up the drag goes up. Going too slow causes more drag than flying 20-50mph faster. but since the drag goes up with the square of the speed trying to climb while going fast in the forward direction doesn't work well either.

The problem with trying to compare one aircraft to another with only basic data (weight, horsepower, etc) is you don't know the climb speeds or the drag at climb speed or the surplus power at climb speed. The Tempest is faster than the F4U-4 using the same power at sea level, so we assume ( I KNOW, I KNOW) that it has less drag. This means when flying at the same speed it has more power available for climb. Without a lot more complicated calculations we don't know how much more. And we don't know if the climb speeds are the same or different.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Also read about "excess thrust"