Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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 thatInteresting 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.
so which one is actually climb better ??An unmodified production F8F-1 set a 1946 time-to-climb record (after a run of 115 ft/35 m) of 10,000 ft (3,048 m) in 94 seconds (6,383 fpm). The Bearcat held this record for 10 years until it was broken by a modern jet fighter
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 aircratYou 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).
no Ki-84's, Ta-152's, or Fw 190D's in service after WWII, so they are pretty much out
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.
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.
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
another question : 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 ?
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.BTW what the main advantages of twin engine fighter like DH Hornet or F7F-4N compared to P-51H or F4U-4
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 ?
...
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.
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.
...
...
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.
...
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 ??
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....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...