Design and properties of the Spitfire Mk. 21+ wing

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Germany had raw materials problems in both world wars. So could not have aero engines equals to the western opposition
But still, in ww1 , they managed to produce fighters fully equal to the opposition despite the weaker engines(fokker dvii, dviii, Siemens suckert iv). In ww2 they failed totally to produce a reasonably competitive fighter after early 1942
The very moment that could not follow the horse power race, they kept adding armor, armament, equipment to their newer very often their fighters. Plus in mid war, ignored the most elementary laws of aerodynamics
Was possible to create better fighters with the historical engines? Certainly yes
All italian series 5 fighters were excellent on derated dB605a , and would be formidable with db605asm or d.
Or a ki84 hayate with db605asm. Would be extraordinary in low and mid altitudes.Or a ki 100 with db605asm.
Personally I feel that even the bf109 , could be close to the late war allied fighters if it was seriously developed aerodynamically
The failure to produce a competitive fighter, was in final analysis, mainly a matter of projects management failures and bad priorities. Even personal agendas of aircraft designers and rlm leaders
 
spicmart said:
What would it take to build a Focke Wulf fighter which was on par with these very late Spits in terms of all-around dogfighting agility?
Click to expand...
You need roll rate/acceleration, wing loading, and ability to accelerate from low/medium speed.
High speed is not the only goal and in fact it is a bit counterproductive.

Jets don't work here.
Early jets will get you to high speed, eventually, but they are like using a fixed pitch prop or a very low pitch range. The Thrust does not convert to climb or acceleration at low speed very well.

Now if you want to bypass dog fighting and just use speed then a 1945 jet might be the way to go.
 
PAT303 said:
My opinion high outright speed is the most overrated performance aspect of an aircraft, all it does is run you out of fuel.
Click to expand...
It is an indicator.
If you have a 380mph fighter (fighter A) and a 410mph fighter (fighter B) the 410mph fighter, at the same actual speed has the extra power to do other things.
At 380mph fighter A can only fly straight and level. If he does anything else (even banks a few degrees) he slows down. Unless he is diving he is never going to be in combat at 380mph.
Fighter B on the other hand, at 380mph, can climb (slightly) and/or at least bank somewhat and still be flying at 380mph.
If both are doing 350mph Fighter B has a lot more choices. He can climb faster while maintaining the same speed, he can bank or turn better and keep doing 350mph. even at 250mph Fighter B will have a power/thrust advantage.

Now how you get that advantage maybe subject to question. Larger, heavier, thirsty engine?
 
Some time back I pointed out that the USAAF did a dogfight between a captured FW-190A and a P-47D. The Jug out turned and generally outmaneuvered the FW-190. And a US Navy pilot who had flown both F6F in combat flew a captured FW-190A and summed up his evaluation: "It's not a dogfighter."
 
These tests need careful evaluation. Which "fw190a" subtype was tested? In what condition?
Eric Brown ,who tested everything , had a very high opinion for the fw190, , equal to spitfire ix
RAF pilots that did dogfight the Fw in mid war considered it very hard opponent.
So various tests of captured equipment provided results not on accordance with front line experience.
I really wonder how the F6F would have performed on the channel front in 1942/43 if it was used instead of spitfires.
 
dedalos said:
I really wonder how the F6F would have performed on the channel front in 1942/43 if it was used instead of spitfires.
Click to expand...
I think everyone would agree that it would have made a damn sight better fighter bomber for Overlord than any Spit or for that matter, the Typhoon. Not as good as battling BF-109's at 30,000 ft, but the primary need for Normandy was at lower altitudes.

And I think that P-47/FW-190 combat showed that the "everybody knows" that the P-47 was sluggish at maneuvering and had an enormous turn radius belongs in the same trash heap with "the P-39 was used for tank busting."
 
Well, comparing the P-47 and the Fw 190, the 50% bigger wing on the P-47 makes up for a lot of weight.
And once they put water injection on them and you got much over 8,000ft (Fw 190 was in high gear) the extra 50% power of the P-47 also made up for the extra weight.
Now we are pretty much arguing about roll rate/acceleration.
 
PAT303 said:
Use the same design philosophy, small, light, lots of power and good aero.
Click to expand...
German fighters were already smaller than the Spitfire.
Good aero - Spitfires with intercooled engines was probably the worst offenders among the late ww2 fighters.
Fw was not in engine business, expecting them to handwave more power than it was historically available is kinda barking under the wrong tree.
 
Shortround6 said:
Well, comparing the P-47 and the Fw 190, the 50% bigger wing on the P-47 makes up for a lot of weight.
Click to expand...
Indeed it does. And USAAF pilots reported that the Jug was the best rolling airplane they had ever flown. I wonder how roll rates for the P-47 and F6F compared. 25,000 ft and above the P-47 could handle the FW-190 with relative ease. The FW-190 was a hit and run airplane, not a dogfighter.
 
tomo pauk said:
It means that Fw is a wrong address to 'blame' for the absence of engines with really good power/weight ratio at high altitudes.
Click to expand...
FW wanted to develop a 190 with a turbosupercharger but they did not have the required amount of nickel to build them, the same materials problem that led to the Me-262 never being much more than a curiosity and the V-2 using hydrogen peroxide to drive the turbine.

Story is that in the summer of 1941 a Luftwaffe officer went to Dr. Willey Messerschmidt and said that they were well pleased with the 109 but wanted something with more power and range. Dr. Willy replied angrily, "You can have a fighter plane or you can have barn door!" A few years later Dr. Willy and that same Luftwaffe officer were riding on a train, which suddenly stopped and they had to jump off as P-47's strafed the train. Looking up from the ditch they were cowering in, the Luftwaffe officer pointed at the Thunderbolts and said, 'Well, there are your barn doors!"

In 1942 the FW company approached the Luftwaffe and said they wanted to improve the altitude performance of the FW-190, which tended to run out of steam rather quickly above 20,000 ft. The Luftwaffe replied, "What for? The British are not flying up that high!" And then the first B-17 raid plastered the Luftwaffe airfield at Abbeville from 25,000 ft.
 


As you can see, laying the blame on Fw for not outfitting the 190 with the latest and bestest powerplant is unfounded. Finger needs to be pointed to the RLM and engine companies instead.
 
tomo pauk said:
As you can see, laying the blame on Fw for not outfitting the 190 with the latest and bestest powerplant is unfounded. Finger needs to be pointed to the RLM and engine companies instead.
Click to expand...
Still the Fw190 was very very heavy for its size. That wàs Fw s responsibility. If you don't have enough power, then you adjust in order to obtain the desired performance
 
dedalos said:
Still the Fw190 was very very heavy for its size. That wàs Fw s responsibility. If you don't have enough power, then you adjust in order to obtain the desired performance
Click to expand...
You can only adjust so much before things start breaking, and then you need more planes and pilots.
P-40 long nose wing weighed about 150lbs more than a P-36 wing. P-36s and French Hawk 75s were breaking/bending wings at higher than expected rates when landing.

It is a delicate balance.
 
So that means the Spitfire MkIX is not a dogfighter either?.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Paper comparing the flight performance of the P-40E Warhawk and the A6M2 Zero
Replies
8
Views
608
Ivan1GFP
I
Tropical performance of Hurricane and Spitfire
Replies
18
Views
2K
EwenS
E
S
Comparison of the Gloster F.5/34 and the Mitsubishi A6M2.
3 4 5
Replies
86
Views
5K
z42
Z
57th Bomb Wing, 12th AF
Replies
0
Views
296
syscom3
617th squadron and the bunkers in Ijmuiden.
2
Replies
23
Views
609
DerAdlerIstGelandet
Menu
Log in
Register