Thats true. Whenever I would go shooting I allways had ear plugs. I think that most of my hearing loss comes from working on the flightline and flying but I am sure that all those Metallica concerts have not helped...
Favorite fighter/interceptor?
- Thread starter carpenoctem1689
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Thats true. Whenever I would go shooting I allways had ear plugs. I think that most of my hearing loss comes from working on the flightline and flying but I am sure that all those Metallica concerts have not helped...
kool kitty89
Senior Master Sergeant
Soren those figures on the Fw-190A-9 don't seem totaly right. (the first chart moreso than the second) It says the BMW 801-F was used and I've read that this was the planned engine (with 2000 hp take-off and 2,400 hp special emergency power) but it was not yet available so the 801-E/S was used instead with 2000 hp takeoff (and 2,200-2,300 hp when special emergency power was available, though I'm not sure if all of these engines could do this)
The A-8 also should have used the same wider chord propeller of the D-9 (which was more efficient for these power ratings). This propeller, along with the increased power, (and only modest increase in weight) should have raised climb rate to at least that of the D-9, certainly if the same armament was carried. (and better than the D-9 w/out MW50) Though it would be slower than the D-9 with MW50 due to the higher drag of the radial engine and the wing and belly racks.
I do agree that the D-9 should turn better though, but some pre A-8 models may have had a (slightly) smaller radius (and about the same as the A-8), while the turn-time for the D-9 would be ~10% better due to better sustained speed in turns. As for roll, I'd expect it to be the same. (though late 190's did have better high-speed roll than early models iirc)
davparlr,
I think the Fw-190A-8 would be a good interceptor to add to that list, as its climb should be similar to the D-9 (at least down low) but could carry 4x 20mm cannon and 2x 13mm nose guns. (though the outer wing 20mm's were often removed)
You also didn't list the Tempest Mk.V
It should also be noted that many of the planes up there could have carried better interceptor gun armaments. (though I've never heard of any operational Me 109s carrying 2x 15mm cannons) The P-51 could (and did) carry 4x 20mm cannons without trouble. The spitfire tried 4x 20mm but this was unsatisfactory. The P-47 couldcertainly cary 4x 20mm abd maby even 6x 20mm guns. The P-38 could likely carry 4x 20mm guns.
Also you didn't consider rocket armaments. The P-38L, for example, could carry 10x 5" HVAR, or 4x rocket launchers each carrying a cluster of 3x 4.5" rockets. The 4.5" rockets were intended for ground attack but could be used as an interception weapon in a pinch. And don't forget the R4M!
I don't think the Me 262 could have ended daylight bombing on its own (maby by psycological affect) even if there weren't engine problems there were plenty of problems with production and development (plus there's training conversion time) to be fielded before mid 1944. The He 280 could have served as an intrim measure and could have been feilded as early as mid 1943 if the wings had been redesignd to accept HeS-6 engines. (the HeS 6 was the only engine with enough thrust that could have been mass produced by 1942, it was an inferior engine of greater weight and diameter than the HeS-8 and would have given lower performance, but it ran in 1940 and produced 550-590 kp, wich the HeS-8 wasn't making untill late 1941 and even then with much other trouble, plus it was still narrower than Whittle's engines)
That said there was an even more effective weapon that was simple, cheap, realitively low-tech, and could easily have been feilded by 1942 if work on (or intrest in) such a device had started sooner. The R4M rocket: simple cheap, easy to build, and very effective. (without the need for a proximity fuse, though one would certainly increase effectiveness, but a simple time fuse was sufficient, just set to detonate at the desired range) It also had the great advantage of having the same trajectory as the Mk 108, so they could be sited the same. Fw 190s could easily have carried these weapons as could the He 280 have. This truely could have stopped daylight bombing before the LW was outnumbered.
chuckn49,
While I mean no disrespect to your brother, diving was one thing the P-38 could not do well, it could not maintain controll in excess of .68 Mach, and even then it needed the dive flaps to remain stable. The P-51 could safely dive to .75 mach (pilots often pushed farther), while the late P-47D could do mach .80 (more with dive flaps) and accelerated much faster than either the 51 or the 38. And the P-47D,M,N and the F4U-4 could out roll the P-38 at all but very high speeds (nearing the P-38's limit) and even then it might not have beaten the P-47N. The P-38L could out-roll a P-51 at evry speed and could out turn most other US fighters (probably not the Hellcat and maybe not the Corsair) especially if independent throttles were coordinated for turns. And it had longer range than any of the others (similar to the P-47N) and had a better chance of getting home and more concentrated firepower than the P-51. The P-38J/L could also out-climb any US or axis a/c that saw servise in the war. The P-38 could aso out maneuver any other USAAF fighter down low, plus there's no diving issue below 15,000 ft. (except maybe for the P-40, but the P-38 has so many other advantages, even down low)
The P-47 was more comfortable to fly in with a large padded "armchair" seat and good heating and (I've read) air conditioning. The P-47 had better high-speed control and stability than almost any other WWII fighter and could out zoom climb almost anything.
The P-51A (the higest performing Allison Mustang) had the V-1710-81 engine with takeoff 1,200 hp, WEP 1,480 hp from 5,000-10,400 ft, and military power of 1,125 hp up to 17,500 ft. (this engine was also used on the P-40M/N and out performed the 1,300 hp Merlin engined P-40F/L at all useful altitudes)
When introduced the P-51A could outperform any other allied fighter (and maby the Fw 190) at medium altitudes. With 394 mph at 5,000 ft in WEP, 415 mph at 10,400 ft, 408 mph at 17,500 ft at millitary, and a decent 395 mph at 25,100 ft with only 836 hp. Though the Spit could out climb it. It could climb to 20,000 ft in ~6.5 min. at 8,000 lbs. (compared to ~7.3 min for the P-40M)
See: Mustang (Allison Engine) Performance Trials and http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p-51a-1-6007.jpg
The A-8 also should have used the same wider chord propeller of the D-9 (which was more efficient for these power ratings). This propeller, along with the increased power, (and only modest increase in weight) should have raised climb rate to at least that of the D-9, certainly if the same armament was carried. (and better than the D-9 w/out MW50) Though it would be slower than the D-9 with MW50 due to the higher drag of the radial engine and the wing and belly racks.
I do agree that the D-9 should turn better though, but some pre A-8 models may have had a (slightly) smaller radius (and about the same as the A-8), while the turn-time for the D-9 would be ~10% better due to better sustained speed in turns. As for roll, I'd expect it to be the same. (though late 190's did have better high-speed roll than early models iirc)
davparlr,
I think the Fw-190A-8 would be a good interceptor to add to that list, as its climb should be similar to the D-9 (at least down low) but could carry 4x 20mm cannon and 2x 13mm nose guns. (though the outer wing 20mm's were often removed)
You also didn't list the Tempest Mk.V
It should also be noted that many of the planes up there could have carried better interceptor gun armaments. (though I've never heard of any operational Me 109s carrying 2x 15mm cannons) The P-51 could (and did) carry 4x 20mm cannons without trouble. The spitfire tried 4x 20mm but this was unsatisfactory. The P-47 couldcertainly cary 4x 20mm abd maby even 6x 20mm guns. The P-38 could likely carry 4x 20mm guns.
Also you didn't consider rocket armaments. The P-38L, for example, could carry 10x 5" HVAR, or 4x rocket launchers each carrying a cluster of 3x 4.5" rockets. The 4.5" rockets were intended for ground attack but could be used as an interception weapon in a pinch. And don't forget the R4M!
I don't think the Me 262 could have ended daylight bombing on its own (maby by psycological affect) even if there weren't engine problems there were plenty of problems with production and development (plus there's training conversion time) to be fielded before mid 1944. The He 280 could have served as an intrim measure and could have been feilded as early as mid 1943 if the wings had been redesignd to accept HeS-6 engines. (the HeS 6 was the only engine with enough thrust that could have been mass produced by 1942, it was an inferior engine of greater weight and diameter than the HeS-8 and would have given lower performance, but it ran in 1940 and produced 550-590 kp, wich the HeS-8 wasn't making untill late 1941 and even then with much other trouble, plus it was still narrower than Whittle's engines)
That said there was an even more effective weapon that was simple, cheap, realitively low-tech, and could easily have been feilded by 1942 if work on (or intrest in) such a device had started sooner. The R4M rocket: simple cheap, easy to build, and very effective. (without the need for a proximity fuse, though one would certainly increase effectiveness, but a simple time fuse was sufficient, just set to detonate at the desired range) It also had the great advantage of having the same trajectory as the Mk 108, so they could be sited the same. Fw 190s could easily have carried these weapons as could the He 280 have. This truely could have stopped daylight bombing before the LW was outnumbered.
chuckn49,
While I mean no disrespect to your brother, diving was one thing the P-38 could not do well, it could not maintain controll in excess of .68 Mach, and even then it needed the dive flaps to remain stable. The P-51 could safely dive to .75 mach (pilots often pushed farther), while the late P-47D could do mach .80 (more with dive flaps) and accelerated much faster than either the 51 or the 38. And the P-47D,M,N and the F4U-4 could out roll the P-38 at all but very high speeds (nearing the P-38's limit) and even then it might not have beaten the P-47N. The P-38L could out-roll a P-51 at evry speed and could out turn most other US fighters (probably not the Hellcat and maybe not the Corsair) especially if independent throttles were coordinated for turns. And it had longer range than any of the others (similar to the P-47N) and had a better chance of getting home and more concentrated firepower than the P-51. The P-38J/L could also out-climb any US or axis a/c that saw servise in the war. The P-38 could aso out maneuver any other USAAF fighter down low, plus there's no diving issue below 15,000 ft. (except maybe for the P-40, but the P-38 has so many other advantages, even down low)
The P-47 was more comfortable to fly in with a large padded "armchair" seat and good heating and (I've read) air conditioning. The P-47 had better high-speed control and stability than almost any other WWII fighter and could out zoom climb almost anything.
The P-51A (the higest performing Allison Mustang) had the V-1710-81 engine with takeoff 1,200 hp, WEP 1,480 hp from 5,000-10,400 ft, and military power of 1,125 hp up to 17,500 ft. (this engine was also used on the P-40M/N and out performed the 1,300 hp Merlin engined P-40F/L at all useful altitudes)
When introduced the P-51A could outperform any other allied fighter (and maby the Fw 190) at medium altitudes. With 394 mph at 5,000 ft in WEP, 415 mph at 10,400 ft, 408 mph at 17,500 ft at millitary, and a decent 395 mph at 25,100 ft with only 836 hp. Though the Spit could out climb it. It could climb to 20,000 ft in ~6.5 min. at 8,000 lbs. (compared to ~7.3 min for the P-40M)
See: Mustang (Allison Engine) Performance Trials and http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p-51a-1-6007.jpg
chuckn49
Airman
No disrespect taken -- I know my brother would not have disagreed with you on any of what you say. The story of the P-38 student pilot diving the P-38 beyond its envelop was one of an aeronautical engineer believing it could be done and be recoverable when some pilots of the day who exceeded that envelop died. I remember him distinctly telling me of getting into a dive and encountering the control problems you allude to himself. I believe what he experienced was a great deal of difficulty getting the elevators to be effective. I know it scared him.
Anyway, until the day he died, his favorite fighter, overall, was the P-38. He said he felt safer in it, felt it could hold its own against any enemy plane likely to be encountered and was likely to bring its pilots home. This dispite its well documented shortcomings in the ETO.
When he shot down the ME-262 with Zemke, though, he was flying the P-51. He liked the P-51 well enough. Still, he liked the concentrated fire power of the P-38 better because of the 20 mm and 50 cals all being in the nose.
Anyway, until the day he died, his favorite fighter, overall, was the P-38. He said he felt safer in it, felt it could hold its own against any enemy plane likely to be encountered and was likely to bring its pilots home. This dispite its well documented shortcomings in the ETO.
When he shot down the ME-262 with Zemke, though, he was flying the P-51. He liked the P-51 well enough. Still, he liked the concentrated fire power of the P-38 better because of the 20 mm and 50 cals all being in the nose.
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
Dav, I roger that ringing noise. When I was in basic training with the Garand the only hearing protection was cotton and when one was in the "coach" position your right ear was only two or three feet from the muzzle blast. Years of bird hunting with some big game hunting thrown in with no ear protection added to the problem but the worst offender for noise as far as I am concerned is the magnum handgun. The first 15 or 20 rounds I ever fired from a 41 mag was with no ear protection and that did it. The good news is the only time I hear the ringing is when I think about it.
broke91hatch
Airman
Mine is the Corsair. I just love the way that plane looks. And it was a handful in the pacific.
Vraciu
Airman
My favourite fighter is P-40, from those I choose P-47 - huge killer.
BIG BIRD
Airman
I don't think that the la-7 was a intereptore, But it was a killer low level dog fighter. I like the fiat g55 the best but the ta 153 or fw 190d were superior.
kool kitty89
Senior Master Sergeant
You mean the Ta 152 (not 153) right?
You mean Ta 152 right?
Bluehawk
Airman 1st Class
Yup... same problem, same reason(s).Thats true. Whenever I would go shooting I allways had ear plugs. I think that most of my hearing loss comes from working on the flightline and flying but I am sure that all those Metallica concerts have not helped...
Resulting in 2, count 'em TWO, VA provided hearing aids.
As for this thread, it's so difficult to decide which fighter/interceptor of that era... on the American side each of the ones listed had such different strengths.
I'm having all I can do to surpass the Warthog, at the moment.
runningdog
Airman
A spell playing sniper in the fifties did for my hearing. The strange thing is the first time I noticed it was when, walking through a field teeming with grasshoppers, I couldn't hear them. Funny though, I can hear recordings of them.
When I saw a quack about my hearing, he was quite cheerful about it, told me I'd got the 60/40 syndrome. I've got 40% hearing one side and have lost 60% hearing on the other side.
Took me a long time to work the joke out............
Why wasn't the Meteor a choice in the poll? The only true interceptor in the choices was the Me262, and it would be hard to choose it since the P-51 managed such a good record against it. Why is one strange mystery.
So I found myself voting for the P-38, even though it was a pursuit like most of the choices. Britain's rocket killer, the Meteor, would be my top choice.
So I found myself voting for the P-38, even though it was a pursuit like most of the choices. Britain's rocket killer, the Meteor, would be my top choice.
kool kitty89
Senior Master Sergeant
The V-1 wasn't a rocket, it was pulse-jet powered.
And the only Metoer produced durring the war that was really combat capable was the late F.III with Derwent engines and long engine nacelles. (with a top speed of ~490-520 mph)
The Mk.I was slower than the P-51 and the short-nacelled Derwent powered F.III was only marginally faster at low altitudes. (top speed ~450 mph, ~410-420 with Wellands)
But this is a favorites thread, so performance isn't necessarily the deciding factor.
And the only Metoer produced durring the war that was really combat capable was the late F.III with Derwent engines and long engine nacelles. (with a top speed of ~490-520 mph)
The Mk.I was slower than the P-51 and the short-nacelled Derwent powered F.III was only marginally faster at low altitudes. (top speed ~450 mph, ~410-420 with Wellands)
But this is a favorites thread, so performance isn't necessarily the deciding factor.
What great track record did the P-51 have against the Me 262? Sure they did shoot some down in air to air, but the majority of Me 262s were shot down when they were most vulnerable, that being during landing.
wesleyp47
Recruit
For ETO gotta be the P-47, For PTO gotta be the P-38.
drgondog
Major
Chris - I don't have the exact numbers as I don't have all of the encounter reports but ~ 50% were taken out starting with hits at high altitude resulting in damage or destruction, and usually for the damaged ones it was a hit to one engine.. after which a long chase until destroyed.
At least 20% were shortly before landing or shortly after take off.
In context of Me 262 vs P-51, it came out on the short end but not because it wasn't a superior a/c. It simply had no place to hide if it engaged with several 51's without advantage of suprise - and didn't have enough fuel to get way out of sight and have enough time to land safely.
If it lost an engine it was toast.
That I was aware of, but I was not aware that it was that high of a percentage. Thanks.
drgondog
Major
When the Me 262 appeared, the 8th AF developed tactics for a four ship flight to counter the threat. Most of the 262's shot down had an over optimistic view of the superiority (which it had one on one) and thought presumably they could take on four.
It basically reduced to a four ship Thatch weave and if the 262 made a pass and didn't capitalize on its energy to get back to greater altitude, and subsequently try to get a lead on the first two 51s - the second flight would cut the circle for high deflection shots. The K-14 made this possible.
Galland once told me that the doctrine in the march-April timeframe was to only make one pass when allied fighters were in the area.. boom and sail on - never looking back to engage with the escorts
arado234d
Recruit
from the ta-book,it only got into limited serv. late jan. 45 but easly shot down p-47..tempest mk5.. mustangs, it to me was the best fighter,even if only having about 550 mile range
