most important feature on a WW2 fighter

[the lancaster kicks ass]

really? i considdered myself the dominant male of the two

 

[Matt308]

I'll let you and Mkloby sort that one out. Just please don't direct him to male anatomy stuffed into a container.

 

[net_sailor]

i'm not talking about max speed all the time, i'd want a fighter that even when cruising is lightening fast, case in point the Me-262, when were most shot down? the slowest point of their flight, take off and landing! the rest of the time even when cruising she was faster than most aircraft's top speed, once you've opened the taps before going into combat (thus acceleration not important) nothing could touch her, remember we're talking hypothetical aircraft here, doesn't have to very real or realistic, therefore i'd take a phenominally fast fighter.........

Me 262 - an exellent sample of fast a/c without acceleration. That's why she was shoot down during take off and landing!
If you want talk about hypothetical aircraft I suggest imagine a Komet without her disadvantages (i.e. droppped wheels and extremly short range, as well blowing up without a reason ). She could be the most acelerating a/c of WWII with wonderful climb rate.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Me 262 - an exellent sample of fast a/c without acceleration. That's why she was shoot down during take off and landing!
If you want talk about hypothetical aircraft I suggest imagine a Komet without her disadvantages (i.e. droppped wheels and extremly short range, as well blowing up without a reason ). She could be the most acelerating a/c of WWII with wonderful climb rate.

That was due to a flaw inherent in early jet aircraft and the allies were able to exploit it. Had the allies not had air supremacy over Europe Me-262s could of taken off and landed with impunity and things might of been very different. The poor takeoff and landing performance rolls into all first generation jets.

 

[davparlr]

It is obvious that top speed is significant when the difference is significant. Probably most the the powerful WWII fighters would out manuever an F-86 or Mig-15 at the normal combat speeds of WWII. However this didn't prevent them from becoming obsolete to those great fighters.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

It is obvious that top speed is significant when the difference is significant. Probably most the the powerful WWII fighters would out manuever an F-86 or Mig-15 at the normal combat speeds of WWII. However this didn't prevent them from becoming obsolete to those great fighters.

My point....

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

hey hey it's my point too

 

[mkloby]

Well I guess guys, I didn't realize that your WWII fighter had a max speed of 600mph!

I was actually thinking of conventional recip prop driven A/C, in which your speed advantage might be rather marginal. Do you guys have AMRAAMs too?

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

oh you.... he said armament aside

 

[davparlr]

Well I guess guys, I didn't realize that your WWII fighter had a max speed of 600mph!

The point is that speed can become overpowering. A early P-51B would have a significant advantage over a Fw-190A-8 at 20k feet with a 21 mph airspeed advantage. Which is probably good enough to engage or disengage as desired (of course high energy surprise attacks generally gives at least a temporary advantage, with little matter which aircraft you are flying). However, a P-51D, at 10k feet would sorely pressed by a slightly slower Fw-190D-9 with much better climb and manuever.

Actually, a balanced capability would be the best fighter. Now, defining that balance has absorbed, and typically evaded, the greatest aviation engineering talent in the world. Not many perfect fighters have ever been built.

 

[mkloby]

The point is that speed can become overpowering. A early P-51B would have a significant advantage over a Fw-190A-8 at 20k feet with a 21 mph airspeed advantage. Which is probably good enough to engage or disengage as desired (of course high energy surprise attacks generally gives at least a temporary advantage, with little matter which aircraft you are flying). However, a P-51D, at 10k feet would sorely pressed by a slightly slower Fw-190D-9 with much better climb and manuever.

Actually, a balanced capability would be the best fighter. Now, defining that balance has absorbed, and typically evaded, the greatest aviation engineering talent in the world. Not many perfect fighters have ever been built.

I was just kidding I totally agree with you and did make a good, valid point.

 

[Soundbreaker Welch?]

I do like speed. It would help you catch up to another fighter.

I suppose turn rate is good. I do like to get close behind a fighter in games.....since my aim can sometimes be a bit poor without unlimited ammunition.

But one thing I do like is big guns, or powerful guns that shoot down an enemy plane quickly, even more than unlimited ammunition. Keeping an enemy in your sights even a short time is hard enough.

 

[k9kiwi]

Blend speed and manoeuvre together with operationally good weapons and you have a great aerial platform.

Combine it with a pilot that understands the vertical and you have a superior weapon.

The plane flies. The pilot thinks.

Use them together in the smoothest motion (speed, control, and pushing the planes flight envelope) through all the dimensions available and then you have the ultimate airplane.

Baring obvious disparities (Swordfish against an ME-262) the pilot that caught your butt hanging while you had a mind fart nailed you. Once it got to a stand up fight, the pilot that knew how to get the maximum from himself and his plane through multiple manoeuvres whilst maintaining air speed through all the dimensions won. Usually.

When it was one on one and the pilot didn't get target fixated.

The most important feature of any aircraft is the pilot. Remove that it it will not start.

 

[mad_max]

k9kiwi says a mouthful. I agree wholeheartedly with him.

If speed wasn't one of the top items in an aircraft, then why would all aircraft makers
upgrade their performances to achieve more speed and in the case of alot of airframes
degrade their turning performances?

 

[mkloby]

k9kiwi says a mouthful. I agree wholeheartedly with him.

If speed wasn't one of the top items in an aircraft, then why would all aircraft makers
upgrade their performances to achieve more speed and in the case of alot of airframes
degrade their turning performances?

That's not exactly true - totally depends upon the mission.

 

[mad_max]

mkloby,

The question:

This is rather academic, but I wonder: What feature should more important/useful on a fighter's performance against another fighter

The mission is fighter vs fighter. What mission are you thinking of?

 

[davparlr]

k9kiwi says a mouthful. I agree wholeheartedly with him.

If speed wasn't one of the top items in an aircraft, then why would all aircraft makers
upgrade their performances to achieve more speed and in the case of alot of airframes
degrade their turning performances?

Not totally true. The P-47D-25 was slower than the P-47C and the P-51D was slower than the P-51B. While speed does typically increase, there are reasons that justify the reduction in speed. In this case, visibility, and some weight increases for something.

 

[mkloby]

mkloby,

The question:


The mission is fighter vs fighter. What mission are you thinking of?

Sorry I didn't elaborate max:
Speed definitely was a top design parameter, but it's not as if manueverability was thrown to the wind. Keep in mind, many A/C were designed w/ multi-role capability in mind, even though technically a "fighter." I seem to see high top end speed vice manuverability more beneficial to an interceptor role, not a fighter, however.