What Criteria should be used for determining the best land based piston fighter
- Thread starter Lighthunmust
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
- Status
@ tomo pauk . Speed with what? zero fuel and engine running on 110%? If it was so good why was it replaced by the B/C/D? As for the comment on the eastern front i am awaiting your sources which show dogfights at 30.000ft.Don't keep me waiting for long though i want to learn.
Ah, that Mediterranean spirit
Mustang (Allison Engine) Performance Trials
That covers V-1710-engined P-51 P-51A, able to make 390 and 405 mph, respectively.
Perhaps because Packard Merlin used by those afforded almost twice the power @ 25.000 ft?
Makes a good reading for people eager to learn a thing or two, esp. when comparing with stuff from previous link:
P-51 Mustang Performance
When I've said anything about E. front dogfights @ 30 kft?
Last edited:
LOL i actually expected you to use Mike Williams site.Take a look at Russian tests ...ah those Ruskies must be jealous of all that performance.
Axis History Forum • View topic - P-51 and P-47 in USSR: pilot opinions
Oh and don't play dumb you said i should read ,then tell me what to read!
Axis History Forum • View topic - P-51 and P-47 in USSR: pilot opinions
Oh and don't play dumb you said i should read ,then tell me what to read!
- Thread starter
- #85
Lighthunmust
Banned
"I don't undestand why someone is getting their panties in a bunch over a "What if" thread..." - DerAdlerIstGelandet, Moderator
Please let me explain in detail. I have a multi-decade long interest in the subject that is almost a passion. As I am sure you see I am a very new member to this forum, however I have been a lurker for a while. The reason why I started this thread is because I am at home recovering from surgery, so I have time on my hands and I thought this thread would be a fun diversion. As to the thread scenario, I pretty much threw it together in a few minutes. Obviously if I had spent a great deal more time it would have had perhaps better clarity of intent, parameters, and easier guidelines for response. As to your metaphor of getting "panties in a bunch over a "What if" thread" that apparently is what it took to elicit not just an appropriate response but an outstanding, nee plus ultra, penultimate response from Shortround6 to the thread. If you do a quick search of my posts in this and other threads you will find several examples of my respect and admiration of Shortround6. - Lighthunmust
Please though consider the following:
"Any Air Force would have LOVED to have had planes with 1944 capabilities in 1940. Without time travel is wasn't going to happen. There are reasons that 1944 planes had the capability they did and why 1940 planes had the capabilities THEY did. Like 4 years worth of research and development in aerodynamics, different fuel, improved superchargers ( and not just adding a stage), new bearing materials, new vibration dampers, and host of other small but important detail and material changes. Not to mention changes in manufacturing techniques and testing methods." - Shortround6
For me this is just obvious and assumed within the parameters of the thread and the "time travel" phrase is not necessary because this thread was never about actually doing what the scenario is about. This paragraph is not the requested additional criteria, it is just additional unnecessary information to that diverts attention from the issue. All of this information is true but again unnecessary. - Lighthunmust
"What may be more interesting would be to compare the Promised performance of the first NA-73 in 1940 to the performance of planes actually flying in 1940 to see what kind of increase in performance there really was. Especially considering that most planes in combat in 1940 had been on the drawing boards in 1936-37 and so, in some ways were 3-4 years behind the Mustang as it was." - Shortround6
Sure it would be interesting, but please don't hijack my thread, start a new one.
- Lighthunmust
"I was being a bit sarcastic.
Most any 1944-45 fighter is going to beat the crap out of 1940 bombers. Just like a 1944-45 bomber would have made swiss cheese out of any 1940 fighter defense. Imagine Hurricane MK Is trying to intercept A-26s let alone B-29s.
See the XB-28 and XB-42 for an idea of what was at least possible using piston engines and propellers by the end of the war.
North American XB-28 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Douglas XB-42 Mixmaster - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"
Shortround6
Again, unnecessary information that diverts attention from the issue. Also I am surprised that Shortround6 who repeatedly demonstrates in threads excellent knowledge and data sources would post Wikipedia links. Not that Wiki is all bad, just hazardous for accuracy. Also the two links are not really relevant for "what was at least possible using piston engines and propellers by the end of the war." I know you can do better than that Shortround6 because I've seen it in other posts. - Lighthunmust
"I don't think I am being any more obtuse than you are
From your post #14
"The original posting states "This is purely a hypothetical situation in that what is being chosen would be what you would choose if you had to begin fighting WW2 again on September 1, 1939 with any of the aircraft available at any time during 1939-45. Being in production on 9-1-39 is not necessary. Please re-read the original posting."
"Now it has only take another 64 posts to get to the point were being in production on 9-1-39 is not only not necessary but by your admission not likely to come out on top. Of course you as much as admitted that in your post #16 but then persisted with this science-fiction twist of re-fighting WW II with one side using a 1945 airplane from the beginning." - Shortround6
As I stated above the original post starting the thread could have been better written, however unless something was specifically excluded I assumed everyone would understand everything else was probably included. I never excluded Naval aircraft that could be used on land. I just didn't want anyone eliminating land designs because of carrier unsuitability. Of course many land designs can be adapted to carrier operation, such as the Spitfire, P-51, and P-39 if necessary. It is certainly implied in the original scenario that being in production on 9-1-39 is not necessary. There is no implication of only "one side using a 1945 airplane from the beginning.", on the contrary any side could pick any aircraft. This is a thought experiment about determining what the best fighter is regardless of what combatant is using it, not a "science-fiction twist of re-fighting WW II with one side using a 1945 airplane from the beginning." - Lighthunmust
Perhaps I am shouting about "obvious rules of baseball" but I can't figure out if you are talking about American football, European (world) football (soccer), Rugby or Australian rules football. I like plain speaking, ff you want to compare the top piston engine fighters of 1945 based on a wider spread of criteria than usual that is fine. I just don't think we need to evaluate them on how well they would have shot down He 111s over England in daylight in 1940 or defended Darwin against the Japanese in 1942 or escorted transports from Sicily to Tunisia past Malta in 1941-42 to do it.
Before we spend anymore time on this are there any other rules for exclusion, since we also seem to have eliminated jets along the way. Like did a candidate just have to fly in 1945 or or just be in production or see squadron service or actually see combat (that one shortens up the year by about 4-5months)." - Shortround6
My reason for questioning your being deliberately obtuse is because I know you are a very sharp guy. I could not understand how you could not realize the type of response I was trying to elicit. Again the original thread certainly implies no jets and no restrictions on date of flight or production. After reading your most recent posts I think I now understand. You really don't like the way I wrote up this scenario. It probably irritates you with its imprecision and proximity to being silly science fiction. This being said it apparently was worth irritating you because it resulted in you producing the following. - Lighthunmust
I think I will play by a few of my own rules:
(Which certainly appear to conform to the thread parameters and provide additional detail to the criteria I listed - Lighthunmust)
Here is a list of possible candidates.
British:
DH Hornet*
Hawker Tempest VI#^
Hawker Tempest II
Hawker Fury
Martin Baker MB 5#
Supermarine Spitfire MK 22#
Supermarine Spiteful#
France;
None
Germany:
Do 335*
Ta 152#
Me 109K-?#@
Italy:
None
Japan:
None
Soviet Union:
LA-7
Yak-3P#
Prototypes?
US:
Grumman F7F*
Grumman F8F@
Goodyear FG-2^
NA P-51H#@
Republic P-47H
Republic P-72^
Vought F4U-4
Vought F4U-5
If we take out the fighters marked * because they are twins and and would be harder to mass produce because of their size and maintenance problems (original rules 14) Fighters marked ^ suffer same problem expensive 24/28cylinder engines that are hard to maintain.
and we take out the fighters marked # because they have liquid cooled engines and are more likely to be susceptible to battle damage (original rules 6) although a exception or two may be made?
and we take out the fighters marked @ because they have less than average armament (original rules 7) at least for this group we are left with;
British:
Hawker Tempest II
Hawker Fury$
Soviet Union:
LA-7
US:
Republic P-47H
Vought F4U-4$
Vought F4U-5$%
Fighters marked $ are carrier based and so are out according to original rules although they can be land based. Fighter marked % doesn't fly until Dec 21 1945 so it is really here on very thin ice.
The LA-7 falls short in a number of ways and only made it this far because the 1945 version had 3 20mm B-20 cannon which kept in the running armament wise.
It would seem we are down the the Hawker Tempest II and the P-47 and I have a strange feeling the Tempest wasn't supposed to be here. I would note the the P-47s armament while above average for a WW II fighter was below average in the original 1945 group. The Centaurus engine was expensive and had some problems with development during the war but went on to post some rather amazing time between overhaul numbers in commercial service post war. The two planes owned rather different parts of the sky. Tempest II under 20,000ft and the P-47 over 20,000ft. Tempest II doesn't have turbo (and duct) maintenance issues or valves that need adjusting
Now we can fiddle a bit with cockpit size and trying to get a single seat fighter to fight at night I think we are down to two contenders."
Shortround6
"Magnificent! I knew you, more than anyone else I have seen on this forum, had this in you. I also on first impression agree with almost everything you wrote. Whether you realize it or not I am actually one of your fans. I am not trying to antagonize you, just prompt you to use critical analysis of your wealth of knowledge and data to give an opinion on a subject asked in a less than perfect manner." - Lighthunmust
Please let me explain in detail. I have a multi-decade long interest in the subject that is almost a passion. As I am sure you see I am a very new member to this forum, however I have been a lurker for a while. The reason why I started this thread is because I am at home recovering from surgery, so I have time on my hands and I thought this thread would be a fun diversion. As to the thread scenario, I pretty much threw it together in a few minutes. Obviously if I had spent a great deal more time it would have had perhaps better clarity of intent, parameters, and easier guidelines for response. As to your metaphor of getting "panties in a bunch over a "What if" thread" that apparently is what it took to elicit not just an appropriate response but an outstanding, nee plus ultra, penultimate response from Shortround6 to the thread. If you do a quick search of my posts in this and other threads you will find several examples of my respect and admiration of Shortround6. - Lighthunmust
Please though consider the following:
"Any Air Force would have LOVED to have had planes with 1944 capabilities in 1940. Without time travel is wasn't going to happen. There are reasons that 1944 planes had the capability they did and why 1940 planes had the capabilities THEY did. Like 4 years worth of research and development in aerodynamics, different fuel, improved superchargers ( and not just adding a stage), new bearing materials, new vibration dampers, and host of other small but important detail and material changes. Not to mention changes in manufacturing techniques and testing methods." - Shortround6
For me this is just obvious and assumed within the parameters of the thread and the "time travel" phrase is not necessary because this thread was never about actually doing what the scenario is about. This paragraph is not the requested additional criteria, it is just additional unnecessary information to that diverts attention from the issue. All of this information is true but again unnecessary. - Lighthunmust
"What may be more interesting would be to compare the Promised performance of the first NA-73 in 1940 to the performance of planes actually flying in 1940 to see what kind of increase in performance there really was. Especially considering that most planes in combat in 1940 had been on the drawing boards in 1936-37 and so, in some ways were 3-4 years behind the Mustang as it was." - Shortround6
Sure it would be interesting, but please don't hijack my thread, start a new one.
- Lighthunmust
"I was being a bit sarcastic.
Most any 1944-45 fighter is going to beat the crap out of 1940 bombers. Just like a 1944-45 bomber would have made swiss cheese out of any 1940 fighter defense. Imagine Hurricane MK Is trying to intercept A-26s let alone B-29s.
See the XB-28 and XB-42 for an idea of what was at least possible using piston engines and propellers by the end of the war.
North American XB-28 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Douglas XB-42 Mixmaster - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"
Shortround6
Again, unnecessary information that diverts attention from the issue. Also I am surprised that Shortround6 who repeatedly demonstrates in threads excellent knowledge and data sources would post Wikipedia links. Not that Wiki is all bad, just hazardous for accuracy. Also the two links are not really relevant for "what was at least possible using piston engines and propellers by the end of the war." I know you can do better than that Shortround6 because I've seen it in other posts. - Lighthunmust
"I don't think I am being any more obtuse than you are
From your post #14
"The original posting states "This is purely a hypothetical situation in that what is being chosen would be what you would choose if you had to begin fighting WW2 again on September 1, 1939 with any of the aircraft available at any time during 1939-45. Being in production on 9-1-39 is not necessary. Please re-read the original posting."
"Now it has only take another 64 posts to get to the point were being in production on 9-1-39 is not only not necessary but by your admission not likely to come out on top. Of course you as much as admitted that in your post #16 but then persisted with this science-fiction twist of re-fighting WW II with one side using a 1945 airplane from the beginning." - Shortround6
As I stated above the original post starting the thread could have been better written, however unless something was specifically excluded I assumed everyone would understand everything else was probably included. I never excluded Naval aircraft that could be used on land. I just didn't want anyone eliminating land designs because of carrier unsuitability. Of course many land designs can be adapted to carrier operation, such as the Spitfire, P-51, and P-39 if necessary. It is certainly implied in the original scenario that being in production on 9-1-39 is not necessary. There is no implication of only "one side using a 1945 airplane from the beginning.", on the contrary any side could pick any aircraft. This is a thought experiment about determining what the best fighter is regardless of what combatant is using it, not a "science-fiction twist of re-fighting WW II with one side using a 1945 airplane from the beginning." - Lighthunmust
Perhaps I am shouting about "obvious rules of baseball" but I can't figure out if you are talking about American football, European (world) football (soccer), Rugby or Australian rules football. I like plain speaking, ff you want to compare the top piston engine fighters of 1945 based on a wider spread of criteria than usual that is fine. I just don't think we need to evaluate them on how well they would have shot down He 111s over England in daylight in 1940 or defended Darwin against the Japanese in 1942 or escorted transports from Sicily to Tunisia past Malta in 1941-42 to do it.
Before we spend anymore time on this are there any other rules for exclusion, since we also seem to have eliminated jets along the way. Like did a candidate just have to fly in 1945 or or just be in production or see squadron service or actually see combat (that one shortens up the year by about 4-5months)." - Shortround6
My reason for questioning your being deliberately obtuse is because I know you are a very sharp guy. I could not understand how you could not realize the type of response I was trying to elicit. Again the original thread certainly implies no jets and no restrictions on date of flight or production. After reading your most recent posts I think I now understand. You really don't like the way I wrote up this scenario. It probably irritates you with its imprecision and proximity to being silly science fiction. This being said it apparently was worth irritating you because it resulted in you producing the following. - Lighthunmust
I think I will play by a few of my own rules:
(Which certainly appear to conform to the thread parameters and provide additional detail to the criteria I listed - Lighthunmust)
Here is a list of possible candidates.
British:
DH Hornet*
Hawker Tempest VI#^
Hawker Tempest II
Hawker Fury
Martin Baker MB 5#
Supermarine Spitfire MK 22#
Supermarine Spiteful#
France;
None
Germany:
Do 335*
Ta 152#
Me 109K-?#@
Italy:
None
Japan:
None
Soviet Union:
LA-7
Yak-3P#
Prototypes?
US:
Grumman F7F*
Grumman F8F@
Goodyear FG-2^
NA P-51H#@
Republic P-47H
Republic P-72^
Vought F4U-4
Vought F4U-5
If we take out the fighters marked * because they are twins and and would be harder to mass produce because of their size and maintenance problems (original rules 14) Fighters marked ^ suffer same problem expensive 24/28cylinder engines that are hard to maintain.
and we take out the fighters marked # because they have liquid cooled engines and are more likely to be susceptible to battle damage (original rules 6) although a exception or two may be made?
and we take out the fighters marked @ because they have less than average armament (original rules 7) at least for this group we are left with;
British:
Hawker Tempest II
Hawker Fury$
Soviet Union:
LA-7
US:
Republic P-47H
Vought F4U-4$
Vought F4U-5$%
Fighters marked $ are carrier based and so are out according to original rules although they can be land based. Fighter marked % doesn't fly until Dec 21 1945 so it is really here on very thin ice.
The LA-7 falls short in a number of ways and only made it this far because the 1945 version had 3 20mm B-20 cannon which kept in the running armament wise.
It would seem we are down the the Hawker Tempest II and the P-47 and I have a strange feeling the Tempest wasn't supposed to be here. I would note the the P-47s armament while above average for a WW II fighter was below average in the original 1945 group. The Centaurus engine was expensive and had some problems with development during the war but went on to post some rather amazing time between overhaul numbers in commercial service post war. The two planes owned rather different parts of the sky. Tempest II under 20,000ft and the P-47 over 20,000ft. Tempest II doesn't have turbo (and duct) maintenance issues or valves that need adjusting
Now we can fiddle a bit with cockpit size and trying to get a single seat fighter to fight at night I think we are down to two contenders."
Shortround6
"Magnificent! I knew you, more than anyone else I have seen on this forum, had this in you. I also on first impression agree with almost everything you wrote. Whether you realize it or not I am actually one of your fans. I am not trying to antagonize you, just prompt you to use critical analysis of your wealth of knowledge and data to give an opinion on a subject asked in a less than perfect manner." - Lighthunmust
- Thread starter
- #86
Lighthunmust
Banned
I don't mean to sound rude, but if your going to ask peoples opinions to your criteria Lighthunmust, you shouldn't be so nay-saying of theirs, although it might be to get them to explain.
Since you have been a little roughshod, what is your pre-concieved choice of aircraft to your criteria?, listing the points you wish to make as an example to others. - razor1uk
You are not being rude. Any perceived "roughshod" behavior or "nay-saying" was to provoke critical thinking. This thread I started does not have a poll attached for a very good reason. I did not want it to devolve into just another easy to thoughtless check off a box beauty contest or homage to sentimental favorites. I admit to willing to get under peoples skins if that is what it took to make them rationally justify their choices. As to my pre-conceived choice of aircraft based on the criteria: I am still in the elimination phase, but initially I presumed the aircraft would be larger than average, have an air-cooled engine, and be of U.K. or U.S.A. design. I am very much in agreement with most of Shortround6's analysis. Quite frankly I find the topic of this thread hard as hell and pushing my abilities toward the limit. I perhaps should have spent more time crafting it, but even with more time, I think Shortround6 may have been able to create a more precise method of eliciting the same information. - Lighthunmust
"Our fellow member Shortround6 myself have exchanged many cyberspace barrages, yet I've never felt he was being obtuse. He made me do a lot of research, and I've learned a lot from his posts. You can try, too." - tomo pauk
I think if you read all the above you must realize now that you are preaching to the choir. - Lighthunmust
Since you have been a little roughshod, what is your pre-concieved choice of aircraft to your criteria?, listing the points you wish to make as an example to others. - razor1uk
You are not being rude. Any perceived "roughshod" behavior or "nay-saying" was to provoke critical thinking. This thread I started does not have a poll attached for a very good reason. I did not want it to devolve into just another easy to thoughtless check off a box beauty contest or homage to sentimental favorites. I admit to willing to get under peoples skins if that is what it took to make them rationally justify their choices. As to my pre-conceived choice of aircraft based on the criteria: I am still in the elimination phase, but initially I presumed the aircraft would be larger than average, have an air-cooled engine, and be of U.K. or U.S.A. design. I am very much in agreement with most of Shortround6's analysis. Quite frankly I find the topic of this thread hard as hell and pushing my abilities toward the limit. I perhaps should have spent more time crafting it, but even with more time, I think Shortround6 may have been able to create a more precise method of eliciting the same information. - Lighthunmust
"Our fellow member Shortround6 myself have exchanged many cyberspace barrages, yet I've never felt he was being obtuse. He made me do a lot of research, and I've learned a lot from his posts. You can try, too." - tomo pauk
I think if you read all the above you must realize now that you are preaching to the choir. - Lighthunmust
Something wrong with Russian data re. P-51 capabilities - 370 mph at WEP rating for V-1710-39?
How about changing the attitude?
After that, write down a list of the stuff you're read already, so I don't point you in the right direction (unlike I've pointed you to the Mike's site).
??
If I reply to a post, that post was made in the past, not in the future.
A simple sentence saying 'sorry, Shortround6, I was wrong to call you obtuse' would've been much better effort.
Last edited by a moderator:
Shortround6
Major General
I think people need to look at his site and take from it what is presented. In some cases the planes are experimental or trials versions and in some cases they are not. In a few cases he presents documents showing what the manufacturers promised to deliver. Now is he claiming that these figures are the true performance of the plane or is he presenting a historical document that has the manufacturer's claim/promise. In the case of many of the Allied planes weights during the test are given. In some cases planes are ballasted instead of carrying real guns, the weight is there but the drag of protruding gun barrels might not be. If these are different than service weights that will affect things as will such 'minor' things as finish. See the difference in speed for some night fighters caused by a coat of flat black paint. I doubt locally applied camouflage paint jobs are going to factory smooth in all cases. Also be aware that ANY plane will have a production tolerance both in weight and performance of several percent.
Now if somebody can show where Mr. Williams has altered a historical document to make the Allied plans look better that would be one thing. That some other people may have different historical documents is another. If he is posting graphs he has personally made using just a few data points these should be noted as such. If they are graphs that are of historical origin and noted as such they should be taken as such.
I would also note that the "test" figures are often rather high for Russian planes because they had a lot of trouble getting the production planes to the same level of fit and finish. Production planes could be 20-30kph slower than the prototypes.
I will also note that several American manufacturers often promised more than they could deliver. Bell and Curtiss come to mind right away.
Now if somebody can show where Mr. Williams has altered a historical document to make the Allied plans look better that would be one thing. That some other people may have different historical documents is another. If he is posting graphs he has personally made using just a few data points these should be noted as such. If they are graphs that are of historical origin and noted as such they should be taken as such.
I would also note that the "test" figures are often rather high for Russian planes because they had a lot of trouble getting the production planes to the same level of fit and finish. Production planes could be 20-30kph slower than the prototypes.
I will also note that several American manufacturers often promised more than they could deliver. Bell and Curtiss come to mind right away.
I will agree with you that the problem is not so much the site but the way many people use the data.If you don't understand power ratings ,performance at different altitudes, with different weights you just grab the highest number you can find and then come to a forum and post the official numbers.I think everyone should try to check his sources AND keep in mind that aircaft in the field didn't always run on WEP for example.
I agree, I think if someone wants to get the correct figures you have to take it from several sites and then meet somewhere in the middle. That is why graphs and what not will never give a true representation. But for the majority of us that is all we will ever have to go off.
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
Some SL speeds of contemporary fighters
P-51(Allison 1710-39) 360 mph Brit test Mustang I Oct, 1942, power available 1150 hp
P-51A (Allison 1710-81) 374 mph WEP AF test aircraft #43-6007 dtd 2 APR 1943, power available 1470hp (340 mph at 1125 hp)
Spitfire IX 336 mph Brit test 17 March 1943, power available 1560hp
Fw-190A-3 335mph FW document, power available 1730hp
Bf-109F 326mph Kurfurst site, power available 1300hp
I suspect all of these airspeeds have some airframe clean up associated with it which was typical of high speed flight test.
The P-51/51A was a good solid aircraft which was very fast, but with high altitude limitations. Speed verses horsepower available was impressive. Another real indicator of the P-51 future greatness was the combat radius, better than 300 miles on internal fuel, nothing the other aircraft listed could come close to. It did not take rocket science for the AAF or the RAF to realize the P-51 was something special. Now, if we just had a good high altitude engine.
this is, of course testing the Mustang I, the very first Mustang version and not near the performance of even the P-51A.
So, why criticize the site?
Shortround6 and DerAdler have done a great job of explaining the rationale that should be used. Quite often, Spitfireperformance is the only source of detailed test information available and I have no rationale to doubt the veracity of the site in posting government and subcontractor data.
Shortround6
Major General
A Very nice post Dave.
My only quibble is this part
While testing was done with good condition aircraft it was usually done without any extra special "tweaking"
While 'tweaked" performance numbers might look good in an advertisement they could come back to bite contractors. I don't know about other countries but in the US a lot of aircraft contracts were written with bonus and penalty clauses. A contractor might get a few dollar bonus for every plane delivered that posted a speed a certain amount over the contract speed and an bit of an extra bonus for every mph over the minimum bonus speed. Likewise the contractor had to pay a penalty for every plane that failed to meet a certain minimum speed allowance below the contract speed. With more penalties for every mph below the penalty threshold. There were often similar clauses for weight. Build a plane more than a few % overweight from the contract weight and the contractor payed a penalty. OK, they didn't "pay" but the penalties were subtracted from what the government paid at the end of the contract so the contractor lost money.
Using "tweaked" performance numbers in the contract was setting up the contractor for a fall. Either he padded the costs to begin with or he was facing a lot of re-rigging, and hand polishing of aircraft to get them through the tests. Any extra testing (fuel, pilot time, etc) would be at the contractors expense.
There is no doubt that a plane right out the door of the factory may perform better than one that has spent several months on a tropical island in monsoon rains or in the North African desert in sand storms with a number of hard landings or taxing across rough airfields not to mention field repairs of minor battle damage, but the idea that a large number of these "official" tests were done with specially 'massaged' aircraft wouldn't seem logical.
It would just remove the "official" figures just that much further from 'field' reality.
This not to say that a plane in a fly-off competition might not have a few "extra" hours spent on the finish in order to "win" a contract.
Other countries contract practices may differ of course. Being sent to the front in a "penal" battalion might be the leas to af a Russian factory managers worries if too many planes fail to meet the "official" performance "specs"
My only quibble is this part
While testing was done with good condition aircraft it was usually done without any extra special "tweaking"
While 'tweaked" performance numbers might look good in an advertisement they could come back to bite contractors. I don't know about other countries but in the US a lot of aircraft contracts were written with bonus and penalty clauses. A contractor might get a few dollar bonus for every plane delivered that posted a speed a certain amount over the contract speed and an bit of an extra bonus for every mph over the minimum bonus speed. Likewise the contractor had to pay a penalty for every plane that failed to meet a certain minimum speed allowance below the contract speed. With more penalties for every mph below the penalty threshold. There were often similar clauses for weight. Build a plane more than a few % overweight from the contract weight and the contractor payed a penalty. OK, they didn't "pay" but the penalties were subtracted from what the government paid at the end of the contract so the contractor lost money.
Using "tweaked" performance numbers in the contract was setting up the contractor for a fall. Either he padded the costs to begin with or he was facing a lot of re-rigging, and hand polishing of aircraft to get them through the tests. Any extra testing (fuel, pilot time, etc) would be at the contractors expense.
There is no doubt that a plane right out the door of the factory may perform better than one that has spent several months on a tropical island in monsoon rains or in the North African desert in sand storms with a number of hard landings or taxing across rough airfields not to mention field repairs of minor battle damage, but the idea that a large number of these "official" tests were done with specially 'massaged' aircraft wouldn't seem logical.
It would just remove the "official" figures just that much further from 'field' reality.
This not to say that a plane in a fly-off competition might not have a few "extra" hours spent on the finish in order to "win" a contract.
Other countries contract practices may differ of course. Being sent to the front in a "penal" battalion might be the leas to af a Russian factory managers worries if too many planes fail to meet the "official" performance "specs"
The P-51 was also larger than the Spit and the Bf so that may also have something to do with the extra range.See nothing in life is free....
Regarding the site i ask again that people be careful with data that make Allied fighters seem leaps and bounds better than Axis ones.Especially when data posted about German aircraft are lower than shown in German reports.That's all.
Regarding the site i ask again that people be careful with data that make Allied fighters seem leaps and bounds better than Axis ones.Especially when data posted about German aircraft are lower than shown in German reports.That's all.
Shortround6
Major General
And that is one reason ( a big one) why it didn't climb as well as either of them on the same power. And why it needed a longer runway.
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
I have quite often seen during reviews of flight test reports where gun ports have been taped over, gaps filled, aircraft polished, etc., surprisingly, usually during military test. That tends to throw in a variable into test results. I tend to think this is not abnormal as the thought may be lets clean this thing up and see what it will do.
ctrian said:
The P-51 did indeed carry more fuel, which allowed for such range but do not dismiss the fact that the P-51 was probably the most energy efficient prop fighter in WWII, as indicated by the the hp required for airspeed at SL.
For all my comparisons, I try to get data from official test reports where available, usually from Spitfireperformance for Allied aircraft. For German aircraft, I use what I have gotten from Soren, now banned, and Kurturst, both of which represent good German data, I think.
Although one also has to be careful of reverse discrimination with the P-51. Often wing loading, power loading and climb is based on a fuel load which is significantly more than, say, the Spitfire or Bf-109. The P-51B carried 269 gallons of internal fuel, the Bf-109, 106 gallons, a substantial difference in performance. Also, the P-51 is no slouch when it comes to climb. The P-51B, in the fall of 1944, when the Fw-190D arrived, was approved for 75" boost. At this performance level, the P-51B would climb almost identically to the vaunted Fw-190D-9, and have roughly equal speed up to 20k and up where the P-51B was clearly superior.Shortround6 said:
- Thread starter
- #100
Lighthunmust
Banned
LISTED BELOW IS ADDITIONAL CRITERIA SUGGESTED BY POSTERS TO THIS THREAD. I AM PLACING A NOTE ON THE POST ESTABLISHING THIS THREAD DIRECTING NEW VIEWERS TO THIS POST NUMBER. I HAVE ALSO PLACE A NOTE DIRECTING NEW VIEWERS TO POST #72 FROM SHORTROUND6.
It must consistently prevail in fighter versus fighter contest assuming equal pilot skill. That is the fundamental metric. from post 3, drgondog
Production Cost
A critical issue for everyone except the USA. Germany was able to produce 30,000 Me-109s and 20,000 Fw-190s because both aircraft were relatively inexpensive. from post 11, davebender
Upgrade potential
Is the airframe large enough to a accomodate new engines, weapons and larger fuel tanks? If not then you must immediately begin design of a follow-on aircraft. from post 34, davebender
Gunsight. Weapons.
from post 38, by davebender
1. Performance (speed ,roll rate,acceleration ,climb rate etc)
2. Cost
3. Durability
4. Stability
5. Firepower
6. Visibility from cockpit
7. Range
8. Serviceability
9. Radio
10. Gunsight
11. Automated controls
Etc etc etc
from post 30, ctrian
Yep and don't forget cost and serviceability. For example the Bf-109 was not only a great little aircraft but it was very cheap to produce.If an airforce has equipment that require few hours in the hangar they can fly more sorties than the enemy and defeat him even when numerically outnumbered! from post 40, ctrian
Please go to the listed post number to read members reasons for suggestion or choice.
Hurricane by Readie post #5 and#19
Spitfire in post #8 and Sea Fury in post #10 by Tomo Pauk
Martin Baker MB 5 by fastmongrel in post #17
P-47 by GrauGeist in post #27
Corsair by Freebird in post #29
F4U Corsair by BiffF15 in post #51
Bf109 by Ctrian in post #55
Tempest II and P-47 in post #72 by Shortround6
I have not made my choice yet, but I am down to P-47, F4U, Tempest II, and Sea Fury.
A big THANK YOU to all members who are participating in this thread.
With the posting of additional criteria from members, and member suggestions and choices in posts #100 and #101; I hope more of you will take the time to post your carefully considered criteria and choices. THX
It must consistently prevail in fighter versus fighter contest assuming equal pilot skill. That is the fundamental metric. from post 3, drgondog
Production Cost
A critical issue for everyone except the USA. Germany was able to produce 30,000 Me-109s and 20,000 Fw-190s because both aircraft were relatively inexpensive. from post 11, davebender
Upgrade potential
Is the airframe large enough to a accomodate new engines, weapons and larger fuel tanks? If not then you must immediately begin design of a follow-on aircraft. from post 34, davebender
Gunsight. Weapons.
from post 38, by davebender
1. Performance (speed ,roll rate,acceleration ,climb rate etc)
2. Cost
3. Durability
4. Stability
5. Firepower
6. Visibility from cockpit
7. Range
8. Serviceability
9. Radio
10. Gunsight
11. Automated controls
Etc etc etc
from post 30, ctrian
Yep and don't forget cost and serviceability. For example the Bf-109 was not only a great little aircraft but it was very cheap to produce.If an airforce has equipment that require few hours in the hangar they can fly more sorties than the enemy and defeat him even when numerically outnumbered! from post 40, ctrian
Please go to the listed post number to read members reasons for suggestion or choice.
Hurricane by Readie post #5 and#19
Spitfire in post #8 and Sea Fury in post #10 by Tomo Pauk
Martin Baker MB 5 by fastmongrel in post #17
P-47 by GrauGeist in post #27
Corsair by Freebird in post #29
F4U Corsair by BiffF15 in post #51
Bf109 by Ctrian in post #55
Tempest II and P-47 in post #72 by Shortround6
I have not made my choice yet, but I am down to P-47, F4U, Tempest II, and Sea Fury.
A big THANK YOU to all members who are participating in this thread.
With the posting of additional criteria from members, and member suggestions and choices in posts #100 and #101; I hope more of you will take the time to post your carefully considered criteria and choices. THX
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status
