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

Shortround6 said:

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.

Click to expand...

i dont know about beating a the spit ...but i know of one gentleman who got into a climbing battle with a 109 and the twice the bf stalled before the stang....which proved to be the fatal undoing of that LW pilot. this was a 51 B in 44....no idea which 109 version but it was said to have had a round spinner so i would take that as later then an E.

bobbysocks said:

i dont know about beating a the spit ...but i know of one gentleman who got into a climbing battle with a 109 and the twice the bf stalled before the stang....which proved to be the fatal undoing of that LW pilot. this was a 51 B in 44....no idea which 109 version but it was said to have had a round spinner so i would take that as later then an E.

Click to expand...

Would that be Bud Anderson in the Old Crow? Bobbysocks, how about taking a look at the original and additional criteria and making a choice?

Shortround6 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Very good observation ,you see a man named Boyd thought about combat performance and came to the conclusion that a very important variable is Power/Weight.American aircraft would not do so well if you look at that metric.

tomo pauk said:

What on-line resource should you recommend? Can you substantiate the claim that Allied data about German planes was (more often) used, rater than German data?

Click to expand...

You can look at Kurfurst's site plus of course this site for very long threads about which aircraft was better.When people argue so much a lot of interesting data gets posted ,some of it may not be in agreement with the ones you have .Thesis + Anthithesis = Synthesis

Kurfurst's site is excellent source, but the original tables documents from there those from Williams' site pretty much agree with each other.
It would been cool from you to point me (us?) at a site that has more credible data about Allied planes (compared with Williams' site), if such one exists, of course.
In other words, since you were the one that disputes that site, you need to substantiate your claims.

Actually Kurfurst posted the problems with that site here.I have a jpg he made comparing the speeds given by MW and the ones reported by German sources.Just use the search function.
You said : It would been cool from you to point me (us?) at a site that has more credible data about Allied planes (compared with Williams' site), if such one exists, of course.
In other words, since you were the one that disputes that site, you need to substantiate your claims

Let me repeat myself since i wasn't clear the first time ...plus of course this site for very long threads about which aircraft was better.When people argue so much a lot of interesting data gets posted ,some of it may not be in agreement with the ones you have .

In other words: I have to find the evidence that should make your point, not you? Isn't that great, or what?

If you have the jpg, why don't you post it here, either in this thread, or a new one?

I think you should continue your dialog in a new thread and let this one get back to what it is supposed to be: determining criteria to make a decision. The debate on whose sources are "garbage", etc. etc. is not proving productive. Please post any criteria you think appropriate, then use all the criteria to make a choice. After you make your choice then you can dispute the source of data used to make it. Earlier in this thread I asked Shortround6 if he was being deliberately obtuse. Which, Tomo Pauk, in American idiom does not mean he is intellectually deficient, it means acting as if you don't understand to avoid answering a question you don't like. I am now asking both you and Ctrian the same question. Don't ask for any unnecessary apologies. Please respect the intent of this thread or move on. All of your esoteric data source arguments are most certainly a impediment to other members participating. Thanking you in advance for your cooperation - Lighthunmust.

No hard feelings, man
You're request(s) are reasonable, so I'll comply.

tomo pauk said:

No hard feelings, man
You're request(s) are reasonable, so I'll comply.

Click to expand...

Thank you. Like Shortround6, I think you are a pretty sharp guy. I really would appreciate you taking the time to "work the problem" and post a choice. It would really impress me if someone could back-up the choice of a liquid cooled fighter with a good, detailed, explanation. I think it can possibly be done.

Lighthunmust i apologize for partially derailing your post.I'm not going to respond to that guy anymore.

I've proposed Hurricane just to point to the issues when comparing stuff from 1939 vs. stuff from 1945.

For my money, it's a toss up between P-47N, F4U-4 and Tempest II/Sea Fury. All of them were great performers, with mature airframe systems, decent punch (Tempest/SF has slight edge here), and (at least on paper) decent survivability. P-47 would've been a more expensive choice IIRC.

ctrian said:

Lighthunmust i apologize for partially derailing your post.I'm not going to respond to that guy anymore.

Click to expand...

Thank you. You're a sharp guy, how about working the problem and giving me details and a choice. I would really like to see someone make a credible case for a liquid cooled fighter, but please don't let that bias your choice.

For the German side the best overall performer is the Fw190 .Great fighter and can be used in the ground attack role.By 1944 it was used in both roles complementing the Bf109 and superseding the Stuka.Maybe this is close to what you're looking for.Of course you know Jack of all trades, master of none

Lighthunmust said:

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

Click to expand...

In most cases these are unnecessary. If you are using a plane from 1945 as your selection it is already using one of the biggest, baddest engines of WW II, there is nothing to upgrade to. It will also being using the latest (or rather last) weapons fit of WW II and will have nothing to upgrade to. a 1945 selection will also be equipped with a 1945 gunsight and not need upgrading.

Using the Tempest II, where do you go from a 2500hp Centaurus engine? upgrade to what? It has four MK V Hispanos with 750rpm cycle rate. 50 rounds a second, 1/2 the rate of Vulcan gun, What are you going to upgrade to?
P-47N already has a 2800hp engine, upgrade to what?

Been following this thread and decided to opt for the Corsair F4U without naval equipment it would sure help out performance, also like the US radial engine and the aircrafts allround capabilitiy it sure must be in the top 10 for every catagory you can think of

Shortround6 said:

In most cases these are unnecessary. If you are using a plane from 1945 as your selection it is already using one of the biggest, baddest engines of WW II, there is nothing to upgrade to. It will also being using the latest (or rather last) weapons fit of WW II and will have nothing to upgrade to. a 1945 selection will also be equipped with a 1945 gunsight and not need upgrading.

Using the Tempest II, where do you go from a 2500hp Centaurus engine? upgrade to what? It has four MK V Hispanos with 750rpm cycle rate. 50 rounds a second, 1/2 the rate of Vulcan gun, What are you going to upgrade to?
P-47N already has a 2800hp engine, upgrade to what?

Click to expand...

Are you sure in most cases unnecessary? Sometimes a few minor superior attributes add up over time to a very large advantage. The Tempest you mentioned was after all originally equipped with " one of the biggest, baddest engines of WW II" and it was upgraded to a completely different engine.

As far as "the latest (or rather last) weapons fit of WW II", remember this is a scenario where you are limited to one fighter aircraft type for all missions. Perhaps efficient accomplishment of a mission would require an upgrade for example to 20mm or 30mm cannon instead of the eight .50s in a P-47 or .50cals for a Tempest II. The capability and ease of doing could minor detail for the Criteria. If your primary opponent on a mission outnumbers you with relatively easy to shoot down aircraft, more .50cal bullets would be preferable to less 20mm shells. Perhaps for some missions an upgrade to a single really large cannon for each wing would be advantages. How well can your fighter's wing handle it? Even though the history after WW2 quickly decided that cannon rather than .50s was the way to go, in WW2 it may or not be depending on the mission. The improved post WW2 fire control systems are the primary reason for it now being much easier to hit with less ammunition expenditure.

A P-47N may have benefited from additional equipment to provide even more horsepower for low altitude performance comparable to the Tempest II and the same could be said for Tempest II performance at high altitude, if the airframes can take it.

Are we really sure that all gunsights in 1945 are equal, couldn't one manufacture/nation have sight have small advantages that add up over time?

You mentioned in an early post that the Centaurus engine had a great career after the war with long overhaul intervals, what about after battle damage occurs, does a sleeve valve engine hold up as well as a conventional radial? Perhaps it doesn't and you decide to change to a R-2800 like most air racers have out of necessity due to parts I assume. We already know this "upgrade" is possible in the Sea Fury, one of the planes that could be a contender in this thread.

Awhile back someone mentioned Boyd. I've got Coram's "Boyd". No doubt Boyd was very astute about small light-weight fighters and energy management. That being said when you are limited to only one type of fighter, as you are in this scenario; light, fast and maneuverable up/down/sideways is not enough. You have to do most things well enough, and small light-weight fighters (A6M, P-39, Yak-3, etc.) do not do this.

pbfoot said:

Been following this thread and decided to opt for the Corsair F4U without naval equipment it would sure help out performance, also like the US radial engine and the aircrafts allround capabilitiy it sure must be in the top 10 for every catagory you can think of

Click to expand...

Thanks for participating. Some participants certainly agree with you. No doubt it would be in the top 10, and more likely the top 5.

Lighthunmust said:

Are you sure in most cases unnecessary? Sometimes a few minor superior attributes add up over time to a very large advantage. The Tempest you mentioned was after all originally equipped with " one of the biggest, baddest engines of WW II" and it was upgraded to a completely different engine.

As far as "the latest (or rather last) weapons fit of WW II", remember this is a scenario where you are limited to one fighter aircraft type for all missions. Perhaps efficient accomplishment of a mission would require an upgrade for example to 20mm or 30mm cannon instead of the eight .50s in a P-47 or .50cals for a Tempest II. The capability and ease of doing could minor detail for the Criteria. If your primary opponent on a mission outnumbers you with relatively easy to shoot down aircraft, more .50cal bullets would be preferable to less 20mm shells. Perhaps for some missions an upgrade to a single really large cannon for each wing would be advantages. How well can your fighter's wing handle it? Even though the history after WW2 quickly decided that cannon rather than .50s was the way to go, in WW2 it may or not be depending on the mission. The improved post WW2 fire control systems are the primary reason for it now being much easier to hit with less ammunition expenditure.

A P-47N may have benefited from additional equipment to provide even more horsepower for low altitude performance comparable to the Tempest II and the same could be said for Tempest II performance at high altitude, if the airframes can take it.

Click to expand...

I think I missed the part about not only selecting any fighter but being able to upgrade it with any engine or guns or equipment from any nation regardless of who made the airframe in first place.

I think I also missed the part about not only being able to select a 1945 fighter to use in 1939 but being able to upgrade it ways that never happened even post war.

This is getting too "IFFY" for me. I am out.

Shortround6 said:

I think I missed the part about not only selecting any fighter but being able to upgrade it with any engine or guns or equipment from any nation regardless of who made the airframe in first place.

I think I also missed the part about not only being able to select a 1945 fighter to use in 1939 but being able to upgrade it ways that never happened even post war.


This is getting too "IFFY" for me. I am out.

Click to expand...

Well first off, thanks for your participation as you have been invaluable in your contributions. I am very sorry you have decided to opt out of the thread. I think you are forgetting this is not reality, but a thought experiment with its own reality. Even in the actual reality of WW2 I don't think it is impossible to consider using equipment from allies. I think it is fair to apply this thinking to this scenario. No where does the scenario imply being able to use equipment "from any nation". Just because in reality an "upgrade" did not occur, does not mean it couldn't. Being "IFFY" unfortunately is a prerequisite if a thought experiment is to succeed in getting the participants to use unconventional thinking to test conventional thinking.

I hope you will change your mind about contributing. Of all the posters you are the one who has done the most to cause all of us to exercise and expand our intellect. Again, Thank you - Lighthunmust

ctrian said:

Very good observation ,you see a man named Boyd thought about combat performance and came to the conclusion that a very important variable is Power/Weight.American aircraft would not do so well if you look at that metric.

Click to expand...

Okay, let's look at that metric, power loading, weight/power, the lower the better. Let's look at four very critical altitudes for combat, 15k, 20k, 25k, and 30k.
All data is based on fighter weight. Data on the P-51D is post May, 1944.

15k
P-51D 5.3
P-47D-25 5.6
P-47M 4.74
F4U-4 5.4
Bf-109G 5.5
Fw-190A-3 5.5
Fw-190D-9 5.1
Ta-152H 5.5

20k
P-51 6.0
P-47D 5.6
P-47M 4.74
F4U 5.4
Bf-109 5.7
Fw-190A 5.8
Fw-190D 6.0
Ta-152 6.2

25k
P-51 6.9
P-47D 5.6
P-47M 4.74
F4U 5.7
Bf-109 6.9
Fw-190A 7.1
Fw-190D 7.5
Ta-152H 7.4

30k
P-51 7.4
P-47D 5.6
P-47 4.74
F4U 7.0
Bf-109 8.3
Fw-190A 8.9
Fw-190D 9.5
Ta-152 7.8

It is obvious that from May, 1944 on, the P-51, and the P-47 above 20k, owned the sky from 15k to 30k over Germany in power loading. Only at discrete points was the P-51 short on power loading to various German aircraft. The P-51B would do even better as it is lighter.

Note that the power loading of the P-47D-25 and P-47M never varies from 15k to 30k. That is because the P-47D was flat rated at 2300hp to 31k, and, the P-47M and the P-47N, the most powerful pair of single engine aircraft in the war, were flat rated an incredible 2800hp to 33k.

American aircraft didn't seem to do so bad here.

It must be noted that the Germans and the Allies had aircraft such as the Bf-109K and P-51H that would out perform the listed aircraft in power loading, but these types played little to no role in the fight (so did the Ta-152, but I wanted to include it as many consider it the epitome of fighter aircraft). As to the Ta-152, if I were to go up past 40k, it would over take the P-47M as power loading champ.

From your post #116 "As far as "the latest (or rather last) weapons fit of WW II", remember this is a scenario where you are limited to one fighter aircraft type for all missions. Perhaps efficient accomplishment of a mission would require an upgrade for example to 20mm or 30mm cannon instead of the eight .50s in a P-47 or .50cals for a Tempest II. The capability and ease of doing could minor detail for the Criteria. If your primary opponent on a mission outnumbers you with relatively easy to shoot down aircraft, more .50cal bullets would be preferable to less 20mm shells. Perhaps for some missions an upgrade to a single really large cannon for each wing would be advantages."

The allies never had a 30mm cannon. The American 37mm won't fit INSIDE a wing leaving either the British 40mm gun or German guns over 20mm (unless you use Russian guns?)

"thought experiment with its own reality" Once we get into a German "player" being able to pick the Tempest II and arm it with MK 103 cannon and equip it with Nitrous Oxide for altitude performance we really have gone into another reality and one that is so far from being referenced back to anything that could "prove" the sponsor's position (or a critic's) that a discussion of the capabilities of such a modified airplane are meaningless.

Respectfully