Compare some late -post WW II fighter

Discussion in 'Aviation' started by mig-31bm, Mar 28, 2014.

  1. mig-31bm

    mig-31bm Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2014
    Messages:
    42
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Among these aircraft :
    Spiteful XIV , F8F-2 Bearcat , Ki-84 Hayate , Ta 152 H-1 , F4u-4 , P-51H Mustang , DH Hornet , Fw-190D-13 , F7F-4N
    which one is fastest in level flight at high / medium / low altitude ?
    which one have the best acceleration at high/ medium/ low speed ?
    which one climb fastest in high/medium/low altitude ?
    which one have best turn rate in high speed ?
    which one dive fastest ?
    it would also be useful if you can tell me not only which is best in each question but also which is the second , third ..etc ?

    Second question
    in a 1 vs 1 dogfight which one you want to be in ?
     
  2. GregP

    GregP Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2003
    Messages:
    5,906
    Likes Received:
    853
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Electrical Engineer, Aircraft Restoration
    Location:
    Rancho Cucamonga, California, U.S.A.
    #2 GregP, Mar 28, 2014
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2014
    Interesting list.

    There were no Ki-84’s, Ta-152’s, or Fw 190D’s in service after WWII, so they are pretty much out. Where would you get spare parts?

    The best performer of all of them as far as both top speed and rate of climb was the P-51H. It went 487 mph at 25,000 feet and had an initial rate of climb of 5,210 feet per minute. The rest are all reasonably close, at least in speed. If I wanted an all-round fighter, I’d take the P-51H. If I wanted a dogfighter, I’d take the Bearcat any day of the week … but you wouldn’t be disappointed if you took any of them.

    You can look up the speed and rate of climb numbers as easily as I can, but the intangibles are tough to quantify. Many people feel the Corsair in the -4 model was among the best ever made. Most of these people flew the F4U-4 and are diehard fans. I have heard the Spiteful's handling had started to deteriorate from the Spitfire's standard, but it probably handled and flew as well or better than any of the others.

    They only made 19 Spiteful XIV’s and only 13 F7F-4N’s, so maybe they wouldn’t be the best choice for staying in service. If you were building a military force, you’d pick the F4U-4 since they made 2,365 of them. I’d have to believe that the singles would be more maneuverable than the twins for all-out dogfighting, but I have a soft spot in my heart for the DH Hornet. To me it is very probably one of the best-looking planes ever made, right alongside the FMA I.Ae.30 Namcu (of which they only built ONE).

    Also, dogfighting was a thing to be avoided if at all possible so, it might come down to your choice of armament. I’d choose cannon over machine guns if I had the choice.

    Sorry for no single choice, but it’s like a best fighter thread … the mission would determine the choice. All were VERY competent choices and there are no losers in the list ... with the possible "gottcha" of some having been built in such small numbers.
     
  3. mig-31bm

    mig-31bm Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2014
    Messages:
    42
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    #3 mig-31bm, Mar 29, 2014
    Last edited: Mar 29, 2014
    here the part that quite confuse me that even the F8F-2 have a rate of climb of 4,465 ft/min which is slower than P-51H , however it also known that
    so which one is actually climb better ??
    how good was the bearcat turning compared to the A6M zero or spitfire XIV ?

    i can look at the rate of climb or top speed on wikipedia however if iamnot wrong some aircraft perform best at low altitude while some other perform best at high altitude and i dont have the performer graph compared these aircrat
    Ex : the Tempest is better than Ta-152H at low altitude but at very high altitude the opposite happening
     
  4. mig-31bm

    mig-31bm Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2014
    Messages:
    42
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    #4 mig-31bm, Mar 29, 2014
    Last edited: Mar 29, 2014
    some people say the the F4u-4 is the best fighter in WW II along with spitfire XIV but they are alot inferior to P-51H and F8F-2 , is that true ?


    BTW what the main advantages of twin engine fighter like DH Hornet or F7F-4N compared to P-51H or F4U-4
     
  5. davebender

    davebender Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    I agree. If you want to include these aircraft then we must project what their performance would be with another year of engine and airframe improvements. Should also throw in He-162C, Me-262 and possibly Ta-183, guessing how production versions would perform during 1946. That's speculation, not an objective comparison.
     
  6. GrauGeist

    GrauGeist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2008
    Messages:
    15,197
    Likes Received:
    2,033
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Public Safety Automotive Technician
    Location:
    Redding, California
    Home Page:
    KI-84 served in several air forces after WWII ended.

    China operated captured KI-84 until the 1950's in the PLAAF, Taiwan had several captured KI-84 as secondary aircraft and the Indonesian Air Force operated several captured KI-84 against the Netherlands during the 1945-1949 war.
     
  7. drgondog

    drgondog Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2006
    Messages:
    7,359
    Likes Received:
    561
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Executive, Consulting
    Location:
    Scurry, Texas
    Remember that aircraft which had two stage, two speed superchargers had peak hp at FTH for Low blower and FTH for High blower'

    The top speed for such aircraft were at FTH for High blower - and that will be different FTH for different aircraft

    Ditto climb rates.
     
  8. mig-31bm

    mig-31bm Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2014
    Messages:
    42
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    can you explain a little bit more ? , i dont quite understand
     
  9. mig-31bm

    mig-31bm Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2014
    Messages:
    42
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    i actually only try to compare piston aircraft that why i didn't included me-262 or he-162 or meteor
     
  10. tomo pauk

    tomo pauk Creator of Interesting Threads

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    7,994
    Likes Received:
    438
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I f I may cut in:
    We might not know the proper answer to that. You might want to check out several threads that cover the Bearcat's climb rate. Further, the -2 variant of the Bearcat was perhaps 3 years later in service than P-51H, and that is quite a time for development of the A/C, even if they weren't those 'cool' jets.

    Depends on speed?

    You might want to go to the wwiiaircraftperformance.com. Several weeks, if not months worth of reading there :)
    The Tempest's engine featured a two-speed, single-stage suercharger. Single stage superchargers are well suited for low and mid altitudes (roughly under 20000 f). The engine of the Ta-152 featured a three-speed, two-stage supercharger. Two-stage superchargers are useful at all altitudes, but at high altitudes they really shine. Above 20000 ft, you want your A/C to have a two-stage supercharger. If the supercharger drive has more speeds, it is more flexible - uses less power at low altitudes, wile heating less the compressed air, while at greater altitudes it will provide as much power as possible. So the Ta-152 will have no problems beating the Tempest above 20-25000 ft, but so will Spitfire XIV, or Merlin Mustang.
    The turbo-supercharged ww2 aero engine is, technicaly, a two-stage engine, the turbo acting as 1st stage, while internal engine supercharger acted as second stage.

    F8F-2 was not a ww2 fighter*, and I many people will say that P-51H is not, too. With either F4U-4 or Spit XIV, one was well outfitted :) The F4U can do carrier duties, while there was a mark or two of the Spitfire that entered service in 1945, ie. after the XIV.
    *better comparison with -2 might be the F4U-5, also a post-war fighter.

    Firepower. Can be better night fighters, due to ability to have second crew member. Hornet climbed great at all altitudes, and have had excellent range. Not so much the Tigercat, but that one was probably a rugged bird, being made by Grummann and featuring two radial engines. BTW, the variant of the F7F you mentioned was a night fighter. The P-51H was not well suited for CV work.
    Only the F4U qualifies as a 'full' ww2 aircraft.
     
  11. Glider

    Glider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2005
    Messages:
    6,160
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Consellor
    Location:
    Lincolnshire
    Where does the Sea Fury fit in to this section, its more than a match for anything else mentioned including the Bearcat.
     
  12. parsifal

    parsifal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2008
    Messages:
    10,676
    Likes Received:
    676
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Urban Design/Strategic Studies Tutor
    Location:
    Orange NSW
    Maybe include the Hawker Sea Fury FB11, Seafire XV and Seafire 47.
     
  13. GregP

    GregP Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2003
    Messages:
    5,906
    Likes Received:
    853
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Electrical Engineer, Aircraft Restoration
    Location:
    Rancho Cucamonga, California, U.S.A.
    The F8F Bearcat was a real climber, and a great dogfighter but the standard numbers are given for the standard Navy loadouts. There is no point on comparing to the Zero because the Zero was so far outclassed by the Bearcat as to be a non-contender.

    For instance, for an F8F-2:
    the empty weight was7,650 pounds
    the basic weight was 8,390 pounds
    the design weight was 10,200 pounds --- 6.3 g
    the combat weight was 10,337 pounds --- 6.2 g
    the max takeoff weight was 13,460 pounds --- 4.75 g
    the max landing weight was 13,100 pounds

    Takeoff power was 2,250 HP (2,800 rpm). Combat power was 2,500 HP (2,800 rpm). Military power was 2,250 HP (2,800 rpm). Normal power was 1,720 HP (2,600 rpm). These are at sea level and decrease as altitude increases.

    The performance of the F8F-1 is given for 5 conditions shown below. In all conditions, there is one Mk 51-9 fuselage bomb rack and sway bracing and two faired Mk 51-9 wing racks and sway bracing. Remove the bomb racks and away braces and speed are 10 – 11 knots better.

    1.
    Fighter: full fuel, full ammunition, one 150 gallon drop tank: takeoff 11,428 pounds. The specs are for normal power (rated) right after takeoff. Rate of climb was 2,550 feet per minute.

    2. and 3.
    Combat: performance was shown for combat power and normal power. 4,465 feet per minute combat power and 2,930 feet per minute normal power. You can see the difference a few hundred HP makes easily.

    4.
    Bomber: performance was with full fuel, full ammunition, two 1,000 pound bombs and one 150 –gallon drop tank, normal power. Rate of climb was 1,965 feet per minute.

    5.
    Escort: performance was shown with full fuel, one 150-gallon centerline drop tank and two 100-gallon wing drop tanks, normal power. Rate of climb was 2,060 feet per minute.

    However, most countries rated their aircraft at some arbitrary weight and loadouts. Most of the really good numbers are quoted with ¾ ammunition, no racks, no sway braces, and ½ to ¾ fuel. A stock F8F-2 in civilian hands today probably has no guns (fake gun barrels), probably no wing armor, probably no cockpit armor (not all have had these items removed), no racks or sway braces unless going cross country, then usually one centerline tank, has a very smooth, waxed finish, has MUCH lighter radio gear, and is probably flying an airshow at 9,000 to 9,500 pounds or less. In such a condition, it can easily generate well more than 6,000 feet per minute climb rates off the deck. Before he throttles back to airshow power levels.

    There is a website at WWII Aircraft Performance

    If you go carefully through it you can see representative test data from the aircraft manufacturers and sometimes from enemy tests of a captured aircraft. You should DO that.

    What Drgondog is saying above is that some aircraft engines had a 2-stage supercharger. That means they run the impellers at “low blower” speeds down low and gradually lose power up to some altitude, where the pilot changes to “high blower” speeds and the speed increases until some maximum where it begins to slow down again as it goes up. There is one height at each blower speed where the throttle is wide open and the power is maximum, and that is why the speed graphs show a “dogtooth” with two relative maximum speeds. There are several ways this works and the above is not the only explanation, but is ONE partial explanation.

    This only partly explains a 2-stage engine, and there are exceptions where the impellers have a hydraulic coupling and have no dogtooth. An engine with an integral supercharger PLUS a turbocharger shows different characteristics, but is similar to the s-stage mechanical supercharger. There are also single stage engines (single-stage supercharger) with multiple blower speeds and the air-fuel mixture charge can be cooled by anti-detonation injection (or ADI). It was usually but not always water-methanol injection and boosted the power since the charge cooled and you could pack in more air-fuel mixture with each power stroke.

    As you might have picked up, a “stage” is a supercharger impeller wheel. One wheel is a single stage; two wheels is a 2-stage.

    This is NOT a simple subject and there are many twists and turns. Germany had GM-1 (nitrous oxide) and MW-50 (water-methanol) types of ADI. The Allies mostly used water and water methanol ADI.

    Radiator would add drag and some planes, like the P-51, had what we call “Meridith Effect” radiators. They were so well designed that they added some “jet thrust.” It never had a net thrust gain, but the jet thrust created could cancel out most of the cooling drag of the radiator, making the net cooling drag much less and almost reaching the point where the net drag was almost zero from the radiator.

    Like the planes and engines, there are a myriad of armament options from rifle caliber machine guns (mostly 30-caliber (7.7 mm), heavy machine guns (mostly 50-caliber (12.7 – 13 mm), 15-2-30 mm cannons, and even bigger cannons. This subject rates it’s own forum and many are around.

    Likewise you can see 2-blade, 3-blade, 4-blade, and 5 blade single propellers as well as 6 – 8 blade contra-rotating propellers.

    We have a number of very qualified people in here to discuss most subjects, but many have posted basic explanations before and would probably refer you the search function to go read up on it. Drogondog above is one of the qualified guys in aerodynamics (and other subjects, too). There are many folks in here that can answer some pretty technical questions.

    Last, before I get TOO long-winded, most fighters of WWII were never directly compared with a large group of other fighters. There were some comparative flyoffs but, inevitably, the pilots were VERY familiar with their own aircraft and much less so with the opposition aircraft. Additionally, captured aircraft were usually not in tip top condition. So the data among even flyoffs with similar aircraft against one another do not necessarily agree with each other. Variations of as much as 30 mph or more in top speed and 500 or more feet per minute in climb rates are almost normal. Many times it was because the engines were limited to some arbitrary manifold pressure, rpm, or both. Many times one group got WAY better performance because they used better fuel!

    So this is ANYTHING but a cut and dried subject and there is no single thread that can cover it with much in the way of adequacy, certainly not this reply. It may SEEM long, but the subject fills thousands of books, so this barely scratches the surface of the very interesting topic of WWII aviation. On a scale of 1 - 100, this reply is about 0.05.
     
  14. wuzak

    wuzak Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2011
    Messages:
    4,183
    Likes Received:
    167
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Hobart Tasmania
    I would forget the Spiteful - the handling wasn't, apparently, up to Spitfire standards and it didn't take much to stuff up the "laminar" flow wings, so that the performance was barely more than a contemporary Spitfire.

    For Spitfires there is the Mk 24. The 20-series Spits had a stronger wing than the earlier Spits, 4 cannon armament (short barrel Mk V Hispanos) and later Griffon variants. They could still climb quite well, but didn't turn as well as a Mk XIV/XVIII.

    Also, initial climb rates can be misleading. The P-51H had a higher initial climb rate than the Spitfire XIV, but time to altitude is closely matched to 20,000ft, and in the Spits favour to 30,000ft.

    For a post war development, it would have been interesting to see a XIV/XVIII (the XVIII was an improved XIV) with the three speed 2 stage 100-series Griffon from one of the Spiteful prototypes. The two speed Griffons, in British parlance, used Medium Supercharged (MS) and Fully Supercharged (FS) gears. The three speed added a Low Supercharged (LS) gear to improve power at lower altitudes. Should have helped initial climb rate and time to climb.
     
  15. tomo pauk

    tomo pauk Creator of Interesting Threads

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    7,994
    Likes Received:
    438
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Wonder how much the reduction of wing area (by 10%) vs. Spitfire was the culprit for the Siteful's problematic handling?

    Thanks for the effort to type out the F8F-2 specifics.
    But, re. bolded part - you described the two-speed supercharger, not a two-stage one. The last sentence quoted does describe the 2-stager. The hydraulic-coupled have infinite number of supercharger speeds. Those s.chargers have had some advantages (more smooth power curve) as well as disadvantages (loss of power at slip).

    Very much agreed that superchargers, even 'for dummies', are a complicated matter. The Allies did not used water-only as ADI, since that would meant freezing at altitude. Alcohol was used as an anti-freeze.
     
  16. GregP

    GregP Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2003
    Messages:
    5,906
    Likes Received:
    853
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Electrical Engineer, Aircraft Restoration
    Location:
    Rancho Cucamonga, California, U.S.A.
    Yeah, Tomo ... some S/C could stop one impeller and only use one, then cut in both. Some had hydraulic coupling. I think there were about 12 varieties or more. Some had a setting where you didn't even run the S/C. It has been my understanding that some ran the impellers at the speeds where the first one did nothing and the second one did all the work, and then they changed speeds in the first stage when they got higher. Some could disengage one stage or the other, and maybe both, but could also lock both into high-altitude mode.

    There's probably as many types of S/C as there are ways to solve a math problem, and I probably did describe it somewhat wrong for whatever setup you are thinking of.

    Point taken.

    The questions seemed like sort of basic questions and I tried for basic answer and missed a bit ...

    Take a shot at it yourself! No argument here. I agree that my wording could be ... "improved upon," perhaps easily.

    Hey Wusak, take a shot at it, too.

    Drgondog? Bill, what do you think to such general questions?

    Seems like maybe some basic explanations are being sought and it is a WIDE subject, to say the least.
     
  17. wuzak

    wuzak Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2011
    Messages:
    4,183
    Likes Received:
    167
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Hobart Tasmania
    Two stage means two stages of compression.

    This can be from a turbocharger coupled with the engine's "internal" supercharger, or two mechanically driven stages.

    The simplest form was when the two supercharger stages were mounted on the same shaft and thus rotated at the same speed. This is the path that Rolls-Royce took with the Merlin and Griffon. These were driven by multiple speed gear drives (2 speed mostly, but 100 series Griffons appeared late in the war with 3 speeds, though I don't think any went into service aircraft).

    Pratt Whitney had two, or more, different methods. On the R-1830 two stage unit, as found in some (all?) F4Fs, the main engine stage supercharger ran at a fixed ratio with respect to the crankshaft. The auxiliary stage could be run in one of two gears, or it could be left in neutral (for low altitudes).

    Another method they used was with fluid couplings - I believe the 2 stage R-2800s used that method. Certainly the -32W "sidewinder" did.

    Allison use a fluid coupling on their two stage engine. An extension shaft went rearwards from the engine stage supercharger to the auxiliary stage supercharger, which was driven by the fluid coupling. The engine stage supercharger ran at a fixed speed ratio with respect to the crankshaft. Allison adopted this method for teh sake of modularity - the core of some (not all) of their two stage engines was common with those for use with turbos.

    Multiple stages of compression are better for high pressure ratios - the ratio between the pressure before and after the supercharger stage or unit. At high altitudes the air needs to be compressed much more to maintain engine performance. This requires more power to drive, and anything to improve the efficiency is welcome.

    Say you need the air to be compressed to be 4 times the pressure of ambient (ie a pressure ratio of 4). This would require a pressure ratio of 4 in a single stage compressor, or two lots of a pressure ratio of 2 in a two stage compressor. Rolls-Royce's experience suggested that the point at which the two stage compressor became more efficient than the single stage was at a pressure ratio of roughly 3.5.

    Two stage supercharges usuall required some form of cooling of the air between stages (intercooling) or after the compressor (aftercooling). In the case of the Merlin and Griffon Rolls-Royce provided both - the supercharger housing had coolant circulating through it, and it had the large after cooler at the rear of the cylinder banks. A similar aftercooler was fitted to some Allison 2 stage engines, but others did without coolers and used ADI instead. Most 2 stage engines had some sort of intercooling, though.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  18. tomo pauk

    tomo pauk Creator of Interesting Threads

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    7,994
    Likes Received:
    438
    Trophy Points:
    83
    #18 tomo pauk, Mar 30, 2014
    Last edited: Mar 30, 2014
    Yep, the P&W two-stage systems (on R-1830 and R-2800, most notably the -8, -10 and -18 ) were able to de-clutch the 1st stage, so there was left more power to the prop.

    I'm not sure there was any ww2 engine worth talking about that had completely de-clutched S/C, provided they have one, of course. The 2-stage Merlin, Griffon, DB, Jumo and V-1710 have had both impellers rotating all the time.

    No problems - I've posted something along that lines previously in this thread, and in other threads. The dedicated thread, 'superchargers for dummies' (me included :) ), would be helpful.

    An excellent post.
    Just my 2 cents: most of the F4Fs were using the two-stage R-1830, the single stage R-1830 and R-1820 were frequently found in early war models, mostly due to an inadequate supply of the 2-stage R-1830.
    The R-2800, in -8, -10 and -18 variants, have had discreet speeds of the 1st (or auxiliary) stage. Hence no fluid coupling, but a common two-speed gearbox between crankshaft and 1st stage. The -30 would be the one with S/C using fluid coupling; a single stage engine, the -30 belonged to the E series. The -32 belonged to the C series, featuring a two-speed, single stage S/C. Several graphs were posted in this thread (link to the post about the R-2800-32W).
     
  19. davparlr

    davparlr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2006
    Messages:
    2,934
    Likes Received:
    105
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Occupation:
    retired avionics engineer
    Location:
    Southern California
    I think there is an issue here. In 1946, the Navy was still unsure of jet engine performance on an aircraft carrier and was still very interested in propeller driven fighters developing the F8F-2 and F4U-5 after the war. As such, there was still interest in the testing of these aircraft and I think that was why the Navy ran this test. The AAF, on the other hand had lost interest in propeller driven fighters by the end of the war and was putting all its emphasis on jets. Except for P-61, production had ceased on propeller driven AAF fighters by 1946 and the AAF was not interested in testing these aircraft but rather testing jets. So, I don't think there was ever an effort to break the Navy climb time by the AAF. It possibility had a chance of doing so.
     
  20. GrauGeist

    GrauGeist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2008
    Messages:
    15,197
    Likes Received:
    2,033
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Public Safety Automotive Technician
    Location:
    Redding, California
    Home Page:
    The U.S. Navy was also evaluating the P-51H as a possible candidate for carrier serice and in doing so, gathered first-hand data to compare against other, contemporary aircraft.
     
Loading...

Share This Page