What Criteria should be used for determining the best land based piston fighter

[Readie]

How about we stop with the this could do that and that could not do this. Please apply the criteria already established in Posts #1 and #100 to what you think is the best choice and post the results.

Its always good to air views but, you are right. Sorry for the diversion....
Cheers
John

 

[ctrian]

. If the LW could have it would have had these type of fighters tell me they were not aware of these shortcomings after the BoB. When they launched 109s after the B17s the 109s would sometimes not even make contact but would have to land and refuel and try and continue the chase

So you mean that the LW would need an aircraft with 1).Range 2).Firepower to take on the B-17.Something like the Bf110 or Ju88 ? The versions used as nighfighters had these characteristics but they couldn't face single engined fighters.If the Germans had the P-47 or P-51 how would they attack bombers? With the weak 0.5 inch guns?

 

[tomo pauk]

.

 

[ctrian]

.

Did the P-51B/C/D have those guns? and the P-47 also had heavy cannons?
So in the end the Germans would trade one aircarft for another that had however poorer performance at altitude and needed higher octane fuel? Guess they were too dumb for that....

 

[tomo pauk]

What makes you think it would've been impossible for Germans to install their cannons into P-51/-47? Or DB-605 into P-51 airframe?
Do you really think that installation of Packard Merlin forced cannons to be replaced by MGs?

German brass proved time again to be dumb anyway.

(sorry, Lighthunmust)

 

[ctrian]

What makes you think it would've been impossible for Germans to install their cannons into P-51/-47? Or DB-605 into P-51 airframe?

Why on earth would they need to do such a thing ? What prevented them from using their own aircraft ? What possible advantage could they gain by such hypothetical experiments?

 

[tomo pauk]

Replied @ new thread:

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/allied-airframes-german-parts-29221.html

 

[Lighthunmust]

So you mean that the LW would need an aircraft with 1).Range 2).Firepower to take on the B-17.Something like the Bf110 or Ju88 ? The versions used as nighfighters had these characteristics but they couldn't face single engined fighters.If the Germans had the P-47 or P-51 how would they attack bombers? With the weak 0.5 inch guns?

Why on earth would they need to do such a thing ? What prevented them from using their own aircraft ? What possible advantage could they gain by such hypothetical experiments?

During forty years of experience with firearms both in and out of the military, you are the first person I have ever encountered that described John Browning's .50 caliber with the word "weak".
Expense, redundancy, ease of maintenance, rapid fire, ammunition capacity, and most importantly sufficient power are qualities to be balanced against raw power.

From "Flying Guns, World War II" page 98 referring to the BoB

"In a comparison between the British fighters and the Bf109E, the striking difference in ammunition supply must be noted. The British fighters carried 300 rounds for each of their eight machine-guns, enough for sixteen seconds of fire. The Messerschmitt's 20 mm cannon were restricted to 60-round drums, a supply for seven seconds. On the other hand it carried 1,000 rounds for each of the two rifle-calibre guns (this was reduced to 500 if an engine cannon was installed), and because the MG 17 was not particularly fast-firing, and synchronised as well, this supply was good for about a minute of fire! Because the cannon were far more destructive weapons that the machine-guns, the effectiveness as a fighter of the Bf 109 decreased sharply when they ran out of ammunition: but the German pilot still had some guns to defend himself with."
"Clearly the low-velocity, low-rate-of-fire MG-FF was more suitable for dealing with bombers than with fighters, and the RAF would probably have benefited more from such a gun than the Luftwaffe did. Aside from this weapon and the very limited use of the Hispano by the RAF, both sides relied (too much) on rifle-calibre weapons. It has been claimed that Goring later said that the Luftwaffe could have won the battle if it had had the Browning .50 in.; even if he indeed said so he was probably wrong. But there was an awareness, on both sides, that the armament was not what it should have been. That there was an alternative was demonstrated in Belgium, where Avions Fairey completed two or three license-built Hurricanes with four 12.65 mm FN-Browning (.50 in. M2) guns before the country was overrun." (bold add for emphasis by Lighthunmust)

Of course merely having the .50 would not have changed the outcome of the Battle of Britain! The Americans were not the only nation thinking four .50s was the way to go for balance of power and firing time. Fabrique Nationale could have easily provided rifle caliber guns. Perhaps if the Luftwaffe's single engine fighters carried heavy machineguns with lots of ammunition and had the fuel efficiency of a Mustang for longer patrol times to shoot down the escort fighters, it would have allowed the twin engined bomber destroyers to be more effective. The .50 caliber MG with sufficient ammunition supply was a very good compromise of firing time and power for shooting down any WW2 aircraft. It was not weak, it was sufficient in power and efficient in all other areas of performance.

 

[davparlr]

"Good" superchargers for work at 20,000ft and up are incredibly bulky and require an inter-cooler/after-cooler to reach anywhere near their full potential.

See: http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/F4U/F4UIS.gif

Please note that shows only one side of the intake system for a F4U. The size of the piping/ducts and inter-cooler would have to go up in proportion. The size of a two stage supercharger and inter-cooler system to feed a 4360 cu in engine might nave been more than they could fit in the Corsair.

I see. Looking at an outline drawing, their appears to be no room for growth forward of the cockpit. The F2G-1 does not add any length to the F4U and the cockpit does not look to have been moved aft. The only way I can see for them to put the longer engine is is either to reduce the size of the fuel tank or to reduce the size of the compressor. Maybe a reduced compressor is the reason for such low performance at higher altitudes. The XP-72 with its aft turbocharger, had plenty of room to increase its size. In addition, a larger and heavier turbocharger located aft of the wings would mitigate the heavier R-4360 engine.

 

[Lighthunmust]

I see. Looking at an outline drawing, their appears to be no room for growth forward of the cockpit. The F2G-1 does not add any length to the F4U and the cockpit does not look to have been moved aft. The only way I can see for them to put the longer engine is is either to reduce the size of the fuel tank or to reduce the size of the compressor. Maybe a reduced compressor is the reason for such low performance at higher altitudes. The XP-72 with its aft turbocharger, had plenty of room to increase its size. In addition, a larger and heavier turbocharger located aft of the wings would mitigate the heavier R-4360 engine.

The XP-72 did not use a turbocharger. It had a supercharger. - Bodie in "Republic's P-47 Thunderbolt" page 404

 

[P-40K-5]

Yes the 109 had its way until the 51 arrived , it could pick and choose when to fight it had the advantage of ground control and fighting over its home territory the USAAF fighters negated this ability. please do not think that I am saying the US was better as it was far from that . When the 51 arrived in 43 the LW was waning and the 51 was able to complete the task that was started by Russians and Commonwealth

again you don't seem to get it. but whatev... sorry for straying from the O/Ps original question.

 

[jim]

During forty years of experience with firearms both in and out of the military, you are the first person I have ever encountered that described John Browning's .50 caliber with the word "weak".
Expense, redundancy, ease of maintenance, rapid fire, ammunition capacity, and most importantly sufficient power are qualities to be balanced against raw power.

From "Flying Guns, World War II" page 98 referring to the BoB

"In a comparison between the British fighters and the Bf109E, the striking difference in ammunition supply must be noted. The British fighters carried 300 rounds for each of their eight machine-guns, enough for sixteen seconds of fire. The Messerschmitt's 20 mm cannon were restricted to 60-round drums, a supply for seven seconds. On the other hand it carried 1,000 rounds for each of the two rifle-calibre guns (this was reduced to 500 if an engine cannon was installed), and because the MG 17 was not particularly fast-firing, and synchronised as well, this supply was good for about a minute of fire! Because the cannon were far more destructive weapons that the machine-guns, the effectiveness as a fighter of the Bf 109 decreased sharply when they ran out of ammunition: but the German pilot still had some guns to defend himself with."
"Clearly the low-velocity, low-rate-of-fire MG-FF was more suitable for dealing with bombers than with fighters, and the RAF would probably have benefited more from such a gun than the Luftwaffe did. Aside from this weapon and the very limited use of the Hispano by the RAF, both sides relied (too much) on rifle-calibre weapons. It has been claimed that Goring later said that the Luftwaffe could have won the battle if it had had the Browning .50 in.; even if he indeed said so he was probably wrong. But there was an awareness, on both sides, that the armament was not what it should have been. That there was an alternative was demonstrated in Belgium, where Avions Fairey completed two or three license-built Hurricanes with four 12.65 mm FN-Browning (.50 in. M2) guns before the country was overrun." (bold add for emphasis by Lighthunmust)

Of course merely having the .50 would not have changed the outcome of the Battle of Britain! The Americans were not the only nation thinking four .50s was the way to go for balance of power and firing time. Fabrique Nationale could have easily provided rifle caliber guns. Perhaps if the Luftwaffe's single engine fighters carried heavy machineguns with lots of ammunition and had the fuel efficiency of a Mustang for longer patrol times to shoot down the escort fighters, it would have allowed the twin engined bomber destroyers to be more effective. The .50 caliber MG with sufficient ammunition supply was a very good compromise of firing time and power for shooting down any WW2 aircraft. It was not weak, it was sufficient in power and efficient in all other areas of performance.

Let me try remind you some cases of 50 claimed weak
1)Korea .According to american pilots ineffective against Mig 15 , Il10. Many sources e.g Korean war aces,Osprey
2) American Navyrecognized F8F firepower (6x0,50)inadequate and ordered the development of F8f1b armed with cannons. Source F8F in action ,page 22. F4u also went for the 20 mm later.
3) RAF in all its latest figther rejected it in favor of 20mm cannons( Spitfire 21, Spiteful, Sea Fury,Tempest, )
4)Soviets never liked it, rarely used it
5) You claim that it was sufficient for destruction of targets like B17,B29,IL2,B24? Okay, some even claim that it could destroy Tiger tanks
6) There are free sites about guns that provide the maths that proves that the 0,50 was not the best air gun .Mg ff actually was pretty good and certainly better than 0,50 . Galland field modified one of his Bf109F to carry the weapon
7) The very late 190s (A8/9, F8/9, Ta152)had armor that could resist a reasonable number of 12,7mm hits (up to 15-20mm armor,source Dietmar Harmann books)
7sec is not ideal but decent for a proper trained pilot. I never have readen that luftwaffe s problem in Battle of Britain was the armament. The only think that Bf 109E needed to have mustung succes was the Drop tanks , rate of production and proper battle tactics.

 

[davparlr]

The XP-72 did not use a turbocharger. It had a supercharger. - Bodie in "Republic's P-47 Thunderbolt" page 404

WOW, you're right. What a surprisingly poor assumption. Still the supercharger was mounted behind the pilot, which helps Cg.

 

[pbfoot]

again you don't seem to get it. but whatev... sorry for straying from the O/Ps original question.

I get it totally and rely on first hand info , Stats are reasonable guideline for aircraft performance but I wouldn't bet the farm on them .

 

[Lighthunmust]

Let me try remind you some cases of 50 claimed weak
1)Korea .According to american pilots ineffective against Mig 15 , Il10. Many sources e.g Korean war aces,Osprey
2) American Navyrecognized F8F firepower (6x0,50)inadequate and ordered the development of F8f1b armed with cannons. Source F8F in action ,page 22. F4u also went for the 20 mm later.
3) RAF in all its latest figther rejected it in favor of 20mm cannons( Spitfire 21, Spiteful, Sea Fury,Tempest, )
4)Soviets never liked it, rarely used it
5) You claim that it was sufficient for destruction of targets like B17,B29,IL2,B24? Okay, some even claim that it could destroy Tiger tanks
6) There are free sites about guns that provide the maths that proves that the 0,50 was not the best air gun .Mg ff actually was pretty good and certainly better than 0,50 . Galland field modified one of his Bf109F to carry the weapon
7) The very late 190s (A8/9, F8/9, Ta152)had armor that could resist a reasonable number of 12,7mm hits (up to 15-20mm armor,source Dietmar Harmann books)
7sec is not ideal but decent for a proper trained pilot. I never have readen that luftwaffe s problem in Battle of Britain was the armament. The only think that Bf 109E needed to have mustung succes was the Drop tanks , rate of production and proper battle tactics.

Wow! That was an amazing display of things I am well aware of! The word "weak" was a poor choice to describe a belief in ineffectiveness. Within the scope of the discussion started in this thread and continued in the new thread; the sufficiency of the .50 cal as a good balance of power and firing time for destroying bombers by killing pilots instead of attempting destruction by catastrophic damage of critical structural elements is my argument. If you have never read anything about the controversy of guns used in the BoB, you have not done enough reading. I have three books about the BoB, and numerous others that mention this controversy. Just because a Military rejects one weapon for another weapon does not necessarily mean it was the correct decision. This is not a rare event. If you want to continue this discussion, please move it to the other thread. Thank you.

 

[renrich]

The F8F did not, at first, have six fifities. In fact it never had six guns. At first it had four fifties, just like the FMs had. Later it switched to four 20mms. To say the 50 BMG was or is weak seems a little bit of an overstatement. It is still being used and is very effective against light armored vehicles. The F86 in Korea may have been better off with four 20mms but it did get the job done with the six fifties against the Mig 15. From what I have read the Lancaster would have been armed with fifties instead of the rifle caliber weapons if the fifties had been available.

 

[P-40K-5]

I get it totally and rely on first hand info , Stats are reasonable guideline for aircraft performance but I wouldn't bet the farm on them .

well then maybe you can explain exactly how the P-51 put the "smackdown" on the Bf109?
BTW.. D.Brown(?), an American Test Pilot concluded the a Bf109G could reach Mach .83 in
a dive, the P-51D Mach .80, the P-47 Mach .73. he also concludes that a Mach .74 Dive
in a P-47 would = a "graveyard dive". so it seems to me, that the 109 could pick and choose
when to fight, and when to get the hell outta dodge. as most P-51 pilots would not continue
in a dive with a Bf 109. despite what you see on History Channels "Dogfights".

cheers.

PS.. the Bf109K was pretty much equal in speed to the Mustang, and as we
all know, nothing could outclimb the 'K' (props driven WWII era).

 

[Lighthunmust]

well then maybe you can explain exactly how the P-51 put the "smackdown" on the Bf109?
BTW.. D.Brown(?), an American Test Pilot concluded the a Bf109G could reach Mach .83 in
a dive, the P-51D Mach .80, the P-47 Mach .73. he also concludes that a Mach .74 Dive
in a P-47 would = a "graveyard dive". so it seems to me, that the 109 could pick and choose
when to fight, and when to get the hell outta dodge. as most P-51 pilots would not continue
in a dive with a Bf 109. despite what you see on History Channels "Dogfights".

cheers.

PS.. the Bf109K was pretty much equal in speed to the Mustang, and as we
all know, nothing could outclimb the 'K' (props driven WWII era).

I started this thread. So please move your P-51 versus Bf109 "smackdown" discussion elsewhere. It is not beneficial to the topic of discussion.

 

[Lighthunmust]

I want to thank all the members who posted to this thread. A great amount of useful information was contributed. My feeling is that original the parameters used to construct this thread have reached a point of diminishing returns. A new, better conceived thread using much of the information from this one would do the topic of criteria for choosing the best piston fighter more justice.

One of the most significant things presented in this thread is the validity of sources for flight performance and physical characteristics of the fighters. A way of reaching some compromise for these variable needs to be found. I will work on that before starting a new thread.

I believe that in a new thread we will discover that the raw performance figures (speeds, climb rates, horizontal and diving acceleration, primary weapon power, etc.) of the top competitors will tend to balance against each other. In the current thread other factors have not been adequately analyzed. These factors may provide the slim margin of superiority that determines the best piston fighter.

I want to again thank all the members who posted. A special thank you to Shortround6 who made the best effort in analyzing details of criteria and applying them to determine the best choice of aircraft.

I have requested that this thread be closed a Moderator.