As has been pointed out, it is balancing act. Trading one thing for another to get the best possible performance you can. There is no perfect design that has "all the good things you need."
Last edited:
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Just trying to figure how to have all the good things you need in a fighter
Out of all of the fighters that participated in WWII, not a single one could be considered perfect.Just trying to figure how to have all the good things you need in a fighter
Then who did it best id said either us and the p-51D or you and the cane mk2Out of all of the fighters that participated in WWII, not a single one could be considered perfect.
There were quite a few that came close.
If you wanted massive firepower, you gave up both range and maneuverability.
If you wanted range and maneuverability, you gave up massive firepower.
Creating a blend of both was a balancing act.
The 51d though hurt for turning though your spit truns betterI would have to say that the later Spitfire marks and the P-51D were as close to a perfect fighter as one could get.
They had a well balanced blend of:
range, maneuverability and firepower.
You are again stating what was obviously wanted. The "best" sort of looks like this formula (range + power + armaments = performance/ best). The thing is if you make a change to any part of the formula you generally have to take something away from another part if you want to keep performance the same.Just trying to figure how to have all the good things you need in a fighter
Thanks!Hi
Here are a couple of drawings, reference the twelve-gun Hurricane, that may be helpful:
View attachment 658834
View attachment 658835
Mike
The 51d though hurt for turning though your spit truns better
I wouldnt call the merlin wonderful at least the allison could fly upside downYou are again stating what was obviously wanted. The "best" sort of looks like this formula (range + power + armaments + performance = best). The thing is if you make a change to any part of the formula you generally have to take something away from another part if you want to keep performance the same.
A classic "up motor" was the A to B/C Mustang. The A had an Allison V12 that ran out of power at about 20k. Insert the wonderful two stage Rolls Royce (Packard built) Merlin and wow did performance go up. So did weight as the new engine burned more gas / made more power so the fuel tanks were enlarged and the cooling system was enhanced (both added weight to the structure).
Also realize adding water gives more power for about 10-20 minutes, but your airplane carries the water tank, plumbing, and pump for it (added weight) whet you are using it or not. Water weights about 6lbs a gallon, and say you need 40-50 gallons it's not an insignificant amount of weight/space.
Welcome to the world of aircraft designers even today.
Cheers,
Biff
The Spit knowledgeable will clarify when that problem was rectified, however the Merlin Mustang never suffered that problem to my knowledge.I wouldnt call the merlin wonderful at least the allison could fly upside down
The later Merlin carbs were pressurized so they didn't starve.I wouldnt call the merlin wonderful at least the allison could fly upside down
OhThe later Merlin carbs were pressurized so they didn't starve.
Only the early Merlins did.
You do know that the Hurricane's Merlin had that same problem early on, right?
OkYou do know that the Hurricane's Merlin had that same problem early on, right?
There is a s a lot of confusion between the -43 and the Zero. They did have roughly equivalent performance and were both difficult adversaries according to conversations I have had with pilots who flew against them. The Zero was of course primarily a naval fighter while the -43/ Hayabusa/Oscar was flown by the Japanese army. The lack of cooperation between those services is well documented
The Oscar was the primary fighter opposing the AVG in China as well as the successor 14th AAF. We called the -43/Hayabusa the Oscar in AAF terms. So when a report listed a fight with type "O" (which could easily be taken for either Zero or Oscar) it's easy to see how the confusion occurred. Especially so given the similar appearance and performance. So in reports of battle with the IJ Navy they were likely Zeros and with Oscars coming from land bases.
A long answer but it explains much confusion
Not surprising. The Ki-43 only entered service in November 1941. The Allies had no information about it. Early reports of downed Japanese fighters referred to two types of Zero. One with cannon in the wings, the other with heavy machine guns in the nose.IIRC the Ki-43 wasn't recognized by the Allies as a discrete type, separate from the "Type 0", until late 1942 or perhaps even into 1943.